Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Land

Mr Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations as to whether changes should be made in the classification and grading of agricultural land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): My consultations with the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services are nearing completion.
They will be followed by consultations with the agriculture industry, the local authority associations and the representative bodies of the professions and organisations which are concerned with development.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that much land that is classified as grade 3 is good, productive agricultural land? Is it not misleading to put such land in the same category as poorer agricultural land, especially at a time when the Government want to discourage good agricultural land from being used for urban development, except as a last resort?

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. About 2·8 per cent. of the land is grade 1, 14·6 per cent. is grade 2 and 48·9 per cent. is grade 3. I believe that it is because my hon. Friend and I see eye to eye that he is pressing me to make sure that grade 3 land is not thought of as third-class, which it is not.

Food Prices

Mr Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average percentage increase in food prices since May 1979.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): In the 17 months between May 1979 and September 1980 food prices, as measured by the general index of retail prices, rose by 15·6 per cent., compared with a rise of 25·2 per cent. in the retail price index as a whole. The House will be delighted to see that over the past three months the food price index has shown a slight fall.

Mr. Canavan: Is not the Minister ashamed of that disgraceful record, after 17 months of Tory government? How much of that increase was due to the absurdities of the common agricultural policy? Can he assure us that any so-called decrease in our Common Market contribution will not be paid for simply by increased food bills for families in this country?

Mr. Walker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that my reply did not fit in with his well-prepared supplementary question. If he suggests that those figures show a monstrous and shaming policy, I point out that the performance is much better than the average increase in food prices during every year of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if other industries, particularly those which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) represents, had the same track record as agriculture in price rises, productivity and lack of strikes, we should not be in the mess that we are in now?

Mr. Walker: In the interests of British politics, I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he would give the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) a
"teach-in".

Miss Maynard: Does the Minister agree that there is a connection between food and farm prices? Does he remember the speech that he made at Wye college last week, when he said that in 1960 we produced 60 per cent. of our food, and


that we are now approaching 80 per cent.? Did he not further say that in the past 20 years there had been a 150 per cent. improvement in the productivity record of the agriculture industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if, as the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said, we had that throughout industry, we should have a miracle in this country and throughout the world? Therefore, is it not a scandal that farm workers' wages are still £33 per week below the average?

Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect, many of those questions could be related to several later questions.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There has been a substantial improvement in productivity, and a very substantial improvement in wages in the agriculture industry, which is right in view of its freedom from restrictive practices and strikes.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our food producers have received price increases that have been much lower than the rate of inflation? Does that not constitute a remarkable track record for the whole industry?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Agriculture has made an enormous contribution to the battle against inflation, as the figures that I have announced to the House today show.

Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that because of a series of green pound devaluations and an artificially high rate of sterling there is a United Kingdom positive compensatory amount of about 10 per cent? Although our food exporters may be benefiting from that, is there not a tax on food imports to this country which is likely to increase food prices by about 5 per cent? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman considered a green pound revaluation to reduce prices, give our consumers a better deal and help to tackle inflation?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some incredibly distorted comments that have appeared in certain sections of the press. If I were to eradicate the whole of the present MCA advantage to Britain, the effect on the retail price

index would be ⅓ per cent. The headlines that talk about an 8 or 9 per cent. tax on food give a totally false impression. The Labour Party constantly points out the disadvantage to British industry of a high rate of sterling, so it should not be disappointed when there is a European mechanism that stops that disadvantage from occurring in agriculture.

Mr. Mason: May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no intention of revaluing the green pound? Does he accept that if the present situation continues he will be bound to agree to a general increase in food prices at the annual price review?

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have always been discussions on the relativity of MCAs and prices, and I am sure that such discussions will take place at the coming price review. I assure him that at the present time I have no intention of revaluing the green pound.

Sea Fisheries Committees

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had concerning the future role of the sea fisheries committees; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am reviewing a number of local fisheries matters and I intend to issue a consultation document which will cover, among other things, the sea fisheries committees.

Mr. Adley: In view of the experience that we have had of regional water authorities and the personalities of the fishermen involved, will my hon. Friend take it from me that he will not need to undertake much consultation to understand that few fishermen want anything to do with sea fisheries committees being subjugated or taken over by, or merged with, regional water authorities? Will he give an assurance that that will be more than carefully borne in mind in the consultations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not least because of the direct representations that I have received from my hon. Friend, for which I thank him, I am fully aware of the


specific points that he has made. I assure him that those matters will be taken fully into account in the review.

Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion that has just been expressed from the South of England is even more strongly held in Northumberland, where there would be tremendous resentment if the sea fisheries committee were to be taken away, and even more resentment if its job were to be given to the regional water authority?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Far be it from me to be an arbiter on the strength of regional feelings. I recognise the strength of feeling in the North-East as well.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable concern has been expressed about the suggestion that the functions and responsibilities of sea fishery committees might be extended beyond river mouths? Will he assure us that that would not be done without wide consultation with, among others, representatives of Scottish fishermen?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There will be consultation on all these matters that affect the fishing industry.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional water authorities already have enough to do and that they are still settling down, even though they have been in existence for about six years? Transferring the power of the sea fisheries committee in Cornwall to the regional water authority would create not only opposition but resentment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that no decision has been taken on the matter. Representations have been made, and if the functions of sea fisheries committees had to be altered in the way that has been suggested legislation would be required and the matter would have to come before the House.

Milk

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what developments there have been during 1980 affecting the size of the dairy herd and domestic production of milk.

Mr. Peter Walker: The size of the dairy herd in England and Wales in 1980 has been affected by a number of factors,

including the impact of the EEC's non-marketing scheme. Despite this, milk production during the year has held up, and indeed is slightly higher than in the previous year.

Mr. Miller: In the light of the decline in the number of producers, partly as a result of declining profitability and the EEC scheme that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and the fact that we are not self-sufficient in milk production, will my right hon. Friend, if I may put it this way, give a clear steer to our dairy farmers on the Government's policy?

Mr. Walker: The favourable effects on the industry of three green pound devaluations and the increase that it has received from the increase in the retail price of milk show that the Government consider it essential to maintain a major presence for the dairy industry. The big scope for improvement is in dairy products. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that over the past two months the proportion of butter sold to the British market that was British-produced has been higher than for many years.

Mr. Torney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the EEC levies act against the British dairy farmer when we have no surplus of milk or dairy products? Will he therefore take action with the EEC to ensure that those who produce the milk surpluses reduce the number of their dairy cattle?

Mr. Walker: In negotiations last year, Britain, alone of the member countries, expressed sympathy for the Commission's proposal that additional levies should be imposed on those who produce the surpluses. That is a principle with which we are basically in sympathy.

Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British dairy farmers are annoyed at having to pay the co-responsibility levy, and even more annoyed when they discover that French farmers are being compensated by their Government?

Mr. Walker: I should point out that the period during which French farmers did not pay the levy was the last quarter of 1977, when I had no personal responsibility for these matters. I am glad to say that since that time French farmers have paid the levy.

Mr. Strang: Are not the right hon. Gentleman's replies unreasonably complacent, since thousands of milk producers are going out of production as a direct consequence of his Government's high interest rates and the EEC co-responsibility levy? Was not the public burning of the EEC co-responsibility levy cheque by the chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board ample evidence that the producers are reaching the end of their tether? When will the Minister take some action?

Mr. Walker: When the cheque burning took place, the general impression created in the press was that French farmers were not paying the levy and that the cheque was burnt in protest at that. It is now known that the period when they did not pay the levy was the last quarter of 1977, when the hon. Gentleman had certain responsibilities in this sphere.

Fisheries Conservation

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further meetings he has had with his EEC counterparts regarding fishing methods; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 29 September the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers agreed a comprehensive regime for the conservation of fish resources.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deal between Britain and Denmark on the North Sea pout box was described by Scottish fishermen as totally irresponsible and wrecking? Is not the truth that the Ministry of Agriculture is so jealous of all the other Government Departments, which are smashing industry to the ground on the home front, that it is ensuring that large numbers of fishing fleets are being pushed into dry dock all round the country?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should discuss the matter not only with the Scottish fishing industry, but with other fishermen. He will discover that the pout box deal made in the Council of Ministers has been generally welcomed by the British fishing industry.

Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when there are changes in mesh

sizes for conservation purposes there is an adequate supply of the nets available and that changes are not made so often that fishermen have to buy new nets every other week?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the expense that can be faced by fishermen when there are changes in mesh sizes. I accept the point about the availability of nets. The increases in mesh sizes that have been agreed will take effect from 1 December, and were first proposed about 18 months ago. The fishing industry has therefore had a considerable period of warning that this increase in mesh sizes was likely to take place.

Mr. James Johnson: Despite what the Minister said, somewhat unkindly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), is he aware that there is considerable scepticism and dubiety among Hull skippers about the methods used by the Danes? I am talking not about the pout box, but about the North Sea. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Lowestoft over past years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that according to what we are told, a senior Minister has done a deal at the last EEC talks, under which invigilation of fishing methods is to be carried out by a so-called EEC fleet? Many people in Hull and elsewhere believe that invigilation and enforcement should be the responsibility of our own national fleet, rather than that of others coming into our waters.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While I might expect the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to get his facts wrong in relation to the pout box, I should not expect the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) to get his facts wrong. I point out to him that if we had not made the agreement at the end of September there would have been no pout box to the east of the Greenwich meridian. What we have negotiated means that 80 to 90 per cent. of the white fish stocks in that area can be protected. To that extent, the British fishing industry has welcomed the proposal.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend assure those hon. Members who have constituencies nearer the sea than Bolsover that the only way in which we can have sensible conservation measures is by co-operation with the rest of the EEC?
This is one area in which the Community does a good job.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend continues in this manner, he too will reach the sea fairly shortly. He is right. The best way to ensure effective conservation is to get international agreement and have it effectively enforced, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, implied. That is what we are seeking to do in the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister not aware that what seriously concerns the British Fishing Federation is the size of the mesh used in the nets, especially by the Danes, who depend upon industrial fishing? The federation is worried that these fine nets will sweep the seas, and that British fishermen, using a larger mesh size, will lose the chance of taking the table white fish that we require. Will the Minister allay those fears?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I point out three things to the right hon. Gentleman: first, we have conserved a massive area of the North Sea where the Danes will not be permitted to fish, not just for six months of the year, as was the case previously, but for 12 months when the white fish by-catch can be only 10 per cent., much lower than previously. Secondly, fishermen are also entitled to fish for shrimps and other fish with nets below that size.

Mr. Skinner: What about whiting?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thirdly, in the control measures agreed this week we have agreed one specific measure which is that where two nets are carried one has to be stowed in a particular way, which makes policing of industrial fishing much more effective.

Mr. Skinner: What about the red herring?

Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, as a result of his discussions with the European Council, he is now in a position to make a full statement on the common agricultural and fisheries policies which are due to come into operation on 1 January 1981.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am not aware of any significant aspects of the common agricultural policy due to come into force on 1 January 1981 and shall therefore confine my reply to the common fisheries policy. Further steady progress towards a revised CFP was made at the Fisheries Council on 28 October, and on this I shall be making a more detailed statement later today.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he has viewed with interest the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We have never heard of Bolsover bass. It is probably a new fish that we shall hear about when the quotas come into being. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in making these satisfactory recommendations and decisions on the pout box and policing—especially the policing—there will be policing within the waters to such an extent that it will discourage the unfair competition that our fishermen are experiencing?

Mr. Walker: In reply to my hon. Friend I can perhaps comment on the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) to the Minister of State. The policing will be carried out by the member States, as requested by the hon. Gentleman, but I insisted at the Council that the Commission operates a system of supervision to see that all member States carry out their duties properly. I think that the fear of our fishermen is that we shall do our task properly and other countries may not. At the fishing Council it was agreed that the Community should make sure that each member State was carrying out its duties properly.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has whetted our appetite about his future statement. Can he say whether the policing control will be within 12 miles or 200 miles, whether there will be adequate quotas for our fishermen and whether the conservation schemes will be accepted by the European Community, as our fishing industry requires?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the first question is 200 miles. Quotas will be the subject of the next Council meeting. There are agreed conservation measures, which I believe to be in the interests of our fishermen.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend say what I can tell my inshore fishermen in Brighton, who find increasing difficulty in earning a decent living and whose stocks have been destroyed? What hope have they for the future?

Mr. Walker: One of the most important matters of interest to my hon. Friend's fishermen is that we managed to keep the regulations on beam-trawling, which was such a potential danger to his fishermen.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any agreement on a common fisheries policy will have to include agreement on conservation matters, licensing, quotas and policing? Does he agree that the latter is very important if British fishermen are to get a fair deal?

Mr. Walker: We have made it clear that we will not agree to any common fisheries policy without considering it in totality. Enforcement is a basic issue.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the state of the fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 7 August I announced a £14·1 million scheme of aid for the industry. My right hon. Friends and I keep in close consultation with representatives of the industry.

Mr. Brotherton: When will my hon. Friend be in a position to give a definitive answer to the House about the future of the British fishing industry, particularly with regard to our European partners? Will he bear in mind that we require that fish around our coasts should remain our property? It has nothing to do with common ownership with the EEC.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is to ensure a proper future for fishing in this country that we are negotiating with our Common Market partners. It is our hope that we can keep to the programme of resolving these negotiations between now and the end of the year.

Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind that the Minister knows full well that, in Hull, we are on our knees, will he accept that if he does not get a settlement by the end of this calendar year we

shall be on our backs, and finished as a fishing port?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for what underlies the hon. Gentleman's statement. It underlines the need to try to get the common fisheries policy settled. It is a matter that has been outstanding for far too long. I am glad that we have his support.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most deep-rooted problem associated with the state of the fishing industry is the fact that fewer people in this country are eating fish, in contrast to what is happening in Europe? Will he give an assurance that his Department is actively considering an improvement in the marketing of fish generally, along the lines of what has sometimes been done in agriculture?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Over recent years there has been a decline in consumption per head of fish. Marketing is a responsibility of the White Fish Authority. I shall be discussing the matter with the authority and others responsible.

Mr. Mason: The original question asked the Minister to
make a statement about the state of the fishing industry.
If the Minister were honest he would admit that the industry is in a dangerous and parlous condition, that the situation has worsened since his Government came to office and that he has not yet done much about it. What thought is being given within the Ministry to the restructuring scheme that is essential to revive the British fishing fleet in anticipation of the CFP deal at the end of the year, which is only two months away?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that one of the reasons why the fishing industry is in a parlous and difficult state is the failure of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) to come to a sensible negotiated arrangement in Europe. The British fishing industry is now paying the price for that intransigence.
I acknowledge the need to restructure the industry. The Community has made proposals for restructuring. We have welcomed the proposals in principle.
However, it is important to know precisely the opportunities for the British fishing industry in terms of quotas and access. When we know that, it will be sensible to deal with the question of structure, and we shall.

Horticultural Industry

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to maintain a viable home-based horticulture industry.

Mr. Wiggin: We are continuing to give considerable financial support to the horticulture industry through the capital grant schemes, an extensive research and development programme, free advice to growers by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and assistance towards improved marketing of horticultural produce, including the recently announced grant of £300,000 to the Apple and Pear Development Council towards the launching of the kingdom pack scheme.

Mr. Ross: I welcome those comments and congratulate the Government on the action that they have taken. May I draw the Minister's attention to the glasshouse industry? In that context, has any progress been made on a common energy policy in Europe? Has consideration been given to making a once-for-all compensatory payment to glasshouse growers who are prepared to go out of business and pull down their glasshouses?

Mr. Wiggin: The European Commission told the Council on 30 September that it was satisfied that the preferential gas price available to Dutch growers distorted competition. The Commission is taking action under article 93 of the Treaty of Rome. We continue to urge the Commission to do so speedily, in view of the gravity of the situation.

Mr. Body: Is my hon. Friend aware that many glasshouse growers in my constituency are driven to the view that our right hon. Friend no longer has any power to deal with imports, from the Netherlands in particular, which are grown with the help of a considerable fuel subsidy?

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend's views on the Common Market are well known. Tomatoes are subject to EEC rules.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many of the people engaged in the horticulture industry view the Minister's list of aids as worthy of derision, since they are so insubstantial? Is it not clear that in this matter, as in so many others, particularly when energy policy is involved, the Government are disdainful of national need and disregard the supportive attitude of Governments of other member States?

Mr. Wiggin: I shall not answer for the horticulture industry as a whole, but I believe that progress in the apple industry has been remarkable, and something of which we can be proud. Difficulties still exist in some areas, and tomatoes represent one of those difficulties. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we spend nearly £19 million on research alone. That is an enormously high proportion of the total available. The hon. Gentleman's accusations are false.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treaty of Rome permits discriminatory action to be taken against imports when our industry is being unsettled by abnormal imports? Now that the EEC has found that Dutch gas prices break the competition rules, will he please take unilateral action to keep out Dutch imports until action by the EEC on gas prices becomes effective?

Mr. Wright: Unilateral action is neither likely nor called for on this occasion. Germany, France and Belgium are suffering in the same way. We are not alone in our complaints. We have the cause of righteousness on our side.

Potatoes

Mr. Freud: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the result of the homegrown potato crop; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: High yields, coupled with a high level of plantings, mean that there will be a surplus this year. It is not yet possible to estimate its size, but the Potato Marketing Board believes that it will be contained within the 422,000 tonnes already held under our joint support buying arrangements.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that some of the glut is due to allowing


too many imports of non-EEC new potatoes? When he decides the date on which he will stop imports of non-EEC new potatoes next year, will he try to get it right?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that what he says is true. The early potato imports do not affect dramatically the main crop, to which the question relates. Imports caused anxiety this year, and we took immediate action in order to control them. We are having discussions with our suppliers about next year, to ensure that the market is treated in a proper and orderly way.

Mrs. Fenner: Will my hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the need to exercise the same stringency in the marketing of potatoes as he has in the marketing of apples? Will he accept my advice as a housewife—a rare breed in these parts—that the current potato crop is something of a disgrace? Is he aware that some people care no more for plastic-bag potatoes than for plastic-bag bread? Will he ensure that the potatoes on the shelf are a credit to the British potato crop?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that it is necessary for me to convey that to my right hon. Friend, because I am sure that he has taken note of it. The Potato Marketing Board, though it is criticised on some counts, has done a great deal to raise the standard of potatoes. Equally, many producer cooperatives are working hard to that end. I accept that there is scope for further action. It is one matter that is being studied by our marketing advisers.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for the dairy industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that the structure and efficiency of our dairy industry continue to provide a sound basis for its future.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that the costs of dairy farmers in my constituency are rising faster than the prices that they receive, and that they are worried about the future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, we are aware of the difficulties facing dairy farmers. I remind my hon. Friend that during the last year, in relation to retail prices and in other ways, we have done our best to try to maintain incomes.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Since the Department has a general responsibility for agricultural policy in this country, will the Government bear particularly in mind the differential effect upon dairy farmers of current EEC and other policies in this industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, we bear that in mind. My right hon. Friend discusses it frequently with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I had informal discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland Farmers Union this week, and that was one topic raised by it.

Mr. Pollock: Is the Minister aware that production in the area covered by the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board was 7·2 per cent. lower in August this year than it was in August last year? Does he accept that, unless there is a significant increase in the retail price of milk soon, production will fall even further?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One must bear in mind the needs of the consumer as well as the producer if our milk is to be sold. I am conscious that in certain areas and on particular types of farm there has been a decline in production, but the pattern is not even throughout the country. In England and Wales there will probably be a slight increase in the production of milk.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that it would be unacceptable to the British housewife if the Common Market were to force the pint of milk off the doorstep? Will he please take definite action? Is he aware that the issue affects the employment of thousands of distributive milkmen, who are threatened with being thrown out of work? Does he accept that the farm support schemes are based on milk being at the centre of the arrangements? Does he accept also that if milk production deteriorates the price of every other product that the housewife buys will increase?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse the value to the British housewife of the door-to-door delivery of milk, not only in terms of producing a high quality foodstuff on a daily basis, but for all the side benefits—not least the social ones. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to spread scare stories. Nothing has come from the Communiy that threatens the door-to-door delivery. I assure him that we shall do everything possible to maintain the essential door-to-door service to the British housewife and consumer.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's latest estimate of expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1980.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the figure for the guarantee section of the EEC budget to pay for surplus products in 1980 compares with 1979.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Community's expenditure for 1980 is expected to be kept within the £7,600 million included in the original published Community budget for 1980. Of that total, £3,400 million relates to export refunds compared with £3,100 million in 1979 and £1,600 million relates to internal surplus disposal measures compared with £1,000 million spent in 1979.

Mr. Jay: Is it true that subsidised grain, as well as subsidised butter, is now to be exported by the EEC to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Walker: With regard to reports that appeared today about certain forms of feedstuffs being exported to the Soviet Union, a meeting of the management committee in Brussels is taking place today to discuss the matter. From the beginning the British Government have suggested that the EEC should examine all exports—not just grain—to the Soviet Union. At that time such action was not considered essential, either by the Commission or the other member States. If the reports are correct, they will substantiate the view perpetually propounded by the British Government. I hope that in future the Community will abide by our suggestions.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister accept that the guarantee section, which subsidises the food mountains, is becoming more expensive? Is he aware of the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 28 October, that instead of it costing 10 million units of account as it did this year, it will cost 12 million units of account next year? Is it not a fact that the CAP is becoming more horrendous every year? Would we not be better off outside it?

Mr. Walker: A year ago the two worst features of the CAP in terms of cost were the surpluses in dairy products and sugar. The butter mountain has been reduced by one-third during the past 12 months, and instead of paying export restitutions for sugar we are now obtaining rebates because the world price is higher than the Community price. There has been a substantial improvement in those two sectors.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could make better use of the CAP resources if we were to change to a subsidy system, rather than the intervention buying system, especially for perishable goods?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am no supporter of the intervention system for perishable goods. That is why it was an important breakthrough in the Community when we agreed to the premium payment system for lamb. By being able to point to the success of that scheme I hope that we can persuade the Community that it is a better system to ensure that perishable goods go to the housewife, instead of to the stores.

Mr Spearing: If £3,000 million is being spent through the CAP on support for milk and dairy products, why is there a difficulty in the balance of retail and wholesale production of milk in Britain, which, as the Minister knows, is threatening the dairy industry?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that that is the case. There is a considerable future for the British dairy industry. We have the doorstep delivery service, with a guaranteed high level of liquid milk sales. There is considerable scope for improvement in the manufacturing side of the dairy industry, as has been shown this year by our substantially improved


exports of dairy products to the Community and our much larger share of the domestic market.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will it remain my hon. Friend's intention broadly to oppose increases in Community prices for foodstuffs already in surplus? Is he satisfied that the present position of the domestic green pound is logically compatible with that objective?

Mr. Walker: I think that my hon. Friend was absent when I pointed out that on the question of the green pound, the total effect on the retail price index was one-third of 1 per cent. As much of industry is complaining about the adverse effects of the level of sterling upon our export performance in industry, perhaps it is an advantage that in the sphere of agriculture the adverse effects are dealt with by a mechanism agreed within the Community.
I shall not comment on the question of price fixing, which is many months away. We shall judge the position on the merits and the facts an figures that are then available to us.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Skinner: Quite apart from the question of who won at the Cabinet meeting this morning, will the Prime Minister confirm that she is proud that her crony Lord Matthews of Trafalgar House wants to haul down the British flag in order to pursue the right hon. Lady's low-pay policy? Did Lord Matthews get the wage-cutting idea from the Quinton Hazell subsidiary in South Africa—of which the right hon. Lady's husband is a director—which is paying starvation wages? What steps will the Department of Trade take to ensure that the code is no longer infringed.

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I

think that he is referring to the two Cunard liners that are to fly under different flags. I understand that it is a matter of keeping the liners competitive. If they are not competitive they might leave British ownership altogether. On the second part of his question, the reports on Quinton Hazell have been given to the Board of Trade in accordance with the voluntary code. They will be placed in the Library of the House, as is the customary practice.

Mr. Lyell: As the Cabinet rightly discusses further measures to bring public spending under proper control, will my right hon. Friend use all the weight of her authority to ensure that those measures bear upon the proper control of pay and current wending, and not on further cuts in capital expenditure, which provides jobs and investment for the future?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's objective. It is better to make any public expenditure economies bear on the revenue side of the budget rather than on the capital side, which often goes to the private sector. Having said that, I have to say that it is not always easy to do so. Currently, our objective is to hold public spending to the levels previously published, not to cut it overall. There are certain aspects of the programme where public expenditure is increasing sharply, which means that there will have to be reductions in other parts of the programme.

Mr. Foot: If the Cabinet this morning discussed further cuts in public expenditure, will the Prime Minister say what they are? Will she say what calculations were before the Cabinet about the further increases in unemployment that will result from such cuts?

The Prime Minister: All aspects were discussed, and are regularly discussed, by the Government. I repeat that the Government's objective is to hold the public spending totals that have been published. In some ways I regret that we do not have the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's objective in mind when he reduced public spending by £5 billion in one year.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady is responsible for the Cabinet, will she say what further increases in unemployment


will result from her decisions today? Has she taken into account the deepening unemployment crisis, based on the Department of Employment's figures, as described on the front page of the Financial Times today.
Service industries hit as employment figures plunge"?

The Prime Minister: The way to secure good longer-term prospects for jobs is to make the defeat of inflation one's top priority.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people's patience would be sorely tried if yesterday's vote by British Leyland workers were to lead ultimately to industrial action? Does she accept that industrial action can only damage the improving image of British Leyland at home and abroad?

The Prime Minister: We are obviously very much concerned that just when British Leyland has a super new car, which we have all been doing our best to promote as hard as we can, there might be the threat of industrial action. We must leave this matter to Sir Michael Edwardes and the board to deal with. They have been very successful to date, and I hope that they will be successful in bringing British Leyland through this particularly difficult period. We wish the new car well.

Mr. Torney: Will the Prime Minister between her engagements today, consider the serious plight of the woollen textile industry in my constituency and the surrounding parts of West Yorkshire? It is suffering mass unemployment. Will she take some action to stop the unfair competition from abroad, including from the Common Market, which is creating this problem, and will she give aid to this important industry, to alleviate unemployment in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: We operate the multi-fibre arrangement and we increase the number of quotas where that is appropriate. At the moment there are some 400 quotas with a number of different countries. We shall continue to watch the basket regulation carefully to see whether there is any chance of applying for more. We shall need a new agreement. The present one was negotiated by the pre-

vious Government. There will be a new agreement because we are very concerned to see that textiles have a fair chance.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that most of us fought the last general election on the issue of giving top priority to the conquest of inflation? Is she aware that my constituents are pleased that the cost of living is now much more stable—(HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and that their message to her is that they want her to stick to her guns?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he please tell his constituents that the conquest of inflation must have top priority and that I shall do exactly as he says?

Mr. Bagier: Will the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever the views of the constituents in Twickenham, the views of the constituents in Sunderland, South are vastly different? In the Cabinet meeting this morning was there any discussion of the serious effect of unemployment throughout the country? Is the right hon. Lady aware that, far from being prepared to receive lectures on the economy from her, the unemployed in areas like the North-East want to know what practical action she will take to alleviate their problem?

The Prime Minister: In the longer run, good jobs must depend on the conquest of inflation. If we go the way that successive Governments have gone in the past 30 years—that is, reflating and printing money each time—we shall finish up with a higher level of unemployment and inflation. We have to break that cycle once and for all. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, I believe that even in Sunderland, South the constituents prefer a falling rate of inflation to a rising one.

Mr. Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the light of this morning's Cabinet meeting, control of the pubic sector borrowing requirement and


of the money supply remains at the heart of the Government's policy? Does she agree that the reason why both are rising so sharply is that the cost of public borrowing and the cost of unemployment are so high? That is because interest rates are so high. Are we not in danger of creating a society in which money lending is the only profitable business?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that there must be no question of printing money to get an artificial boom, which would lead ultimately to hyper-inflation and higher unemployment. The Government always confirm and stand absolutely on that. We shall not go in for printing extra money. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am every bit as anxious as he is to try to bring down interest rates, because I much prefer them to be lower. The key to getting them down is to reduce the amount of borrowing in the economy, and for that public spending must bear its share of the blame.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents want jobs? Does she not feel ashamed sometimes that she has managed to bring record levels of unemployment to an area that has never known high unemployment? Will she stop lecturing these people about high wages, because they have never had high wages, and they are still being thrown out of work every day as a result of her policies?

The Prime Minister: I make two points in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The key to better jobs lies in keeping British industry competitive with other industrial nations on the Continent. There is no way out of that fundamental truth. The second point, which illustrates the first, is that in the past three years monetary demand has increased in the economy by 50 per cent. It did not go into increased output: it went into increased prices and increased imports. That is the answer to the Labour Party's policy, which is to reflate, which would be catastrophic.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: In the light of the evidence of the increase in pacifism, as shown by the CND march the other day, and given the interest of the Soviet Union and, apparently, of certain Labour Members in British unilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind those in this country who are easily led of the result of appeasement in the 1930s, and the even greater horrors and dangers of nuclear appeasement in 1980?

The Prime Minister: I believe that appeasement always has the same result. It gives encouragement to a potential aggressor. That is why this Government will never go the way of appeasement, although any Government formed by the Labour Party might.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the fact that the majority of people in this country believe that the decision that her Government took this week to allow prisoners in the H block cells in Northern Ireland to wear civilian clothes was both humane and wise? Does she agree that if, as a result of the hunger strike, coffins are carried out of the Maze prison into the Catholic areas, the violence and confusion that will result will be unacceptable to this country? Will she therefore take further decisions to ensure that those coffins do not have to be carried out of the Maze prison?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated last Tuesday, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had indicated previously, a decision was taken before the hunger strike began to allow all prisoners in Northern Ireland to wear civilian clothes, of prison issue, in place of prison uniforms. That decision had been discussed for several months. We thought it advisable to take it before the hunger strike began. There can be no question of any concessions to those on hunger strike now that the hunger strike has begun, and I sincerely hope that they will not persist in it.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to point out to the Leyland workers and others in the public sector that with inflation, on a three-monthly basis, running well down into single figures over a


12-month period, in accepting a single-figure pay increase they will not necessarily reduce their standards of living?

The Prime Minister: We are all most anxious for British Leyland to succeed and for the new car to have considerable sales. It is ironic that there should be a strike threat just when British Leyland has restored its share of the market and is up to about 23 per cent. We earnestly hope that that strike will not come about. We shall have to leave the negotiations to the management of British Leyland to secure that end.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to reconsider her remarks about the competitiveness of British industry? Is she aware that with the present level of sterling there is no chance for whole sectors of British manufacturing industry to be competitive? So long as that remains the case, the prospects for employment and for the Prime Minister's borrowing requirement will get worse.

The Prime Minister: Competitiveness has deteriorated sharply. A part is due to the exchange rate—the smaller part. The greater part, as the figures show, is due to people paying themselves increases for producing the same amount or less. That is abundantly shown by the figures. Two-thirds of the decrease in competitiveness is due to increased pay not matched by increased output. One-third is due to the exchange rate. The way to hope to bring down the exchange rate is to try to reduce interest rates substantially, and that goes back to the question of trying to secure reductions in public expenditure below the levels that would otherwise obtain.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Motion on Community document 9280/80 on aids for milk and pig production.
Motion on the National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order.
Motions relating to Consumer Credit (Advertisements) and (Quotations) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Motion on a draft directive on product liability, document No. R/2237/76 and R/611/77 and 9427/79.
Motion on a proposal for a Community driving licence, document No. 3075/75 and supplementary memoranda of 17 July and 28 October 1980.
WEDNESDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill.
Proceedings on the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords message on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report of the Burgoyne committee on offshore safety, Cmnd. 7866.
Remaining stages of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations.
FRIDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Motions on the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order and on the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) Order. The relevant Community document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motion relating to food consumer protection proposals, documents Nos. 4101/80, 5561/80, 4709/80 and R/1444/78 and corrigendum and the Ministry of Agriculture's memorandum of 24 October 1980.
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.

[The following reports of the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. are relevant to debates on Community documents:

Investment Aids for Milk and Pig Production: 42nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xlii, para. 1 (Proof copies available in Vote Office).

Product Liability: 5th Report 1977–78, HC 29-v, para. 4 22nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxii, para. 1.

Community driving licence: 6th Report 1975–76, HC 8-vi, para. 3; 39th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxxix, para. 1.

Food Consumer Protection Proposals

Plastics in contact with foodstuffs: 2nd Report 1978–79, HC 10-ii, para. 1; 43rd Report 1979–80 (typescript available in Vote Office).

Marketing standards for eggs: 32nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxxii, para. 2.

Pesticide Residues: 26th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxvi, para. 1.

Fruit juices: 29th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxix, para. 2.
The Community documents relevant to the debate on the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1980 and the Common Aricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1980 are Nos. 9370/80, 9521/80, 10439/80 and 10440/80 and an unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 27 October concerning a proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of voluntary restraint agreements with non-member countries concerning sheepmeat and goatmeat.
The relevant report of the European Legislation Committee is the 43rd report of 1979–80 (not yet printed, but typescript copies available in Vote Office).]

Mr. Foot: Since considerable chunks of the business announced by the right hon. Gentleman for next week do not seem to bear much relation to the problems of the British people, will he take special note of the proposal that I made to him yesterday that in future Business Statements he should consider the proposition that in view of the rapidly deepening unemployment crisis we should have a debate in this House every month after the unemployment figures have been announced?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly take note of that suggestion, but I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should think that these draft directives of the European Community are not of great importance to this country. After all, it is extremely

important that any proposals there should be fully scrutinised in this House, and the coming week will constitute a record in that respect.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I said "considerable chunks", and I refer to the scrag ends of his miserable legislative programme.

Mr. David Steel: On the same topic, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Scotland and try to arrange for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee during the spill-over, so that we may have a debate on the particular problems of job loss and unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall consider that suggestion and pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In view of the suggestion that has been made over and over again from both sides of the House that Foreign Affairs questions should last for one hour and incorporate the questions on overseas matters and overseas aid, will my right hon. Friend now implement such proposals?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have already made one alteration in Foreign Office questions and I am willing, if it is for the general convenience of the House and can be arranged, to look at the matter again in the new Session.

Mr. Abse: In view of the deteriorating unemployment position in Wales, including the lamentable announcement today of the closure of GKN in Cwmbran, will the Leader of the House now arrange for a debate on the Select Committee report on Welsh affairs, particularly since the Government have not as yet, after three months, given any formal response to that report?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall look into the matter of the response with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because there should be a reply to that report. That is the first thing to do, and we can consider a debate afterwards.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the gripping importance of the business next week, will my right hon. Friend consider adjusting it so that we can debate a topic about


which many hon. Members are concerned, namely, defence, so that we may also have a chance of listening to the views of the triumvirate in the Opposition Benches?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There does not seem to be a great demand for a debate on defence from either side of the House at the moment.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the Government have announced a moratorium on council house building, and that if the Government's policy is continued there will soon be no construction industry, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be a debate in the House at the earliest opportunity—next week, if possible—on the future of the construction industry, the effect of Government policy on it and the high levels of employment in the industry at present?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall bear that in mind, but the moratorium imposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is essentially temporary.

Sir Anthony Meyer: First, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Members of the Welsh Select Committee will be anxious to debate the report as soon as possible?
Secondly, will he say whether any progress has been made in providing for easier access for Members of the European Parliament who wish to enter this building in order to have discussions with Members of this Parliament and who do not wish to go through the usual scrutiny procedure at the entrance gates?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the Conservative Members of the Welsh Select Committee, and they are subsumed into my response to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
With regard to the access of Members of the European Parliament to the Palace of Westminster, there is an outstanding report of the Services Committee on the subject, and I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate it before too long.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Cryer: May I assure the Leader of the House that there is great anxiety on the Opposition Benches to debate defence, particularly in view of the splendid demonstration last Sunday, which was a reflection of the wave of concern throughout the country at the warmongering attitude of the Government? [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. It could be a matter of life and death. May we have an urgent debate on the mad decision to spend £5 billion on Trident when we are short of money for vital public services in this country? Last Sunday's demonstration was an expression of opposition to the presence of Trident and cruise missiles in this country—a subject that has never been debated.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's desire for a debate but I have not received representations on the matter from the official Opposition. I shall certainly consider any representations along those lines. As to unilateral disarmament, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but he should respect the opinion of others, including that of the Government, that the way to peace is much better served by a policy of multilateral disarmament than unilateral disarmament.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Leader of the House recall that on 7 August he gave an undertaking to me that he would seriously consider allowing a debate on Northern Ireland immediately after Parliament resumed following the recess? In view of the deepening economic crisis that now exists in Northern Ireland—with thousands of people unemployed and the social deprivation that is worsening daily—and because of the danger to security as a result of the hunger strike, will he allow a debate at the earliest possible opportunity, next week if possible?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most significant international events to have taken place during the Summer Recess


was the Polish workers' revolution? Will he arrange for a debate at the earliest opportunity on East-West relations before tragedy strikes in the country, and particularly in view of the forthcoming Helsinki review conference in Madrid?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's request, but the Government's attitude is quite clear—as is the attitude of the Opposition—which is that we have the greatest admiration for the Polish people in their struggle for fundamental democratic rights.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that the Cabinet has been discussing yet further public expenditure cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is a statement next week? Is it true that there is likely to be a Budget early in the new Session? If not, will the Leader of the House arrange an economic debate, because it now appears that even Milton Friedman is disowning the Government's policies?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not familiar with the works of Mr. Milton Friedman. As to the possibility of a Budget, no news of that has come to me. Had the Chancellor had that in mind I am sure that he would have let another Chancellor know. In due course we shall have an economic debate, but I do not think that I can make a specific promise at this stage.

Mr. Marlow: As the EEC draft directive on product liability, which we shall discuss next week, is causing a great amount of concern and worry in commerce and industry, as it will massively increase costs and bureaucracy, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what action can be taken on Tuesday to prevent the thing from ever seeing the light of day? When he replies I would be grateful if he did not say something about harmonisation being important to our industry, at a time when European food and the budget effectively cost every industrial worker in this country £2 a week.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We cannot have Tuesday's debate today, although my hon. Friend has defined his position very

clearly. There will be a full opportunity—I point that out to the Shadow Leader of the House—to discuss it on Tuesday.

Mr. Silverman: I understand from the Business Statement that on Friday we shall discuss four directives—one on egg marketing, one on pesticide reserves, one on fruit juice and one on the effect of plastics on food. They are entirely separate matters. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these matters can be debated together without proceedings becoming a shambles?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There will, of course, be a full day's debate on these various orders. I shall look into the question of how we might be able to arrange the discussions on that day in the most logical and convenient manner for the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the anger and anguish over the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to place a moratorium on council house starts, surely there should be an immediate debate on the subject. We should not be fobbed off with a statement that the moratorium is only temporary. If that is to be the answer, at the very least will the right hon. Gentleman inform us how temporary "temporary" is?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that this is intended to be an interim measure, pending a review.

Mr. Janner: How long?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That question must be addressed to my right hon. Friend, but I would have thought that it would be a matter of weeks rather than months before it disappeared. I cannot promise a full debate on the subject, but there are opportunities by which the matter can be raised. I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is an important matter.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Can we have an assurance that the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on benefits for non-contributory disabled housewives will be debated before any changes are made to the regulations regarding the duties that can reasonably be performed by a disabled housewife?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly look into that matter and see whether we can find room for a debate, but I am afraid that I cannot make a definite promise.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industrial and political patience of the Welsh people is wearing extremely thin in view of the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost even during the Summer Recess since the Select Committee's report? As that Select Committee reported that there was a danger of social unrest as a consequence of growing unemployment, will not the right hon. Gentleman at least arrange for an early debate on that report so that the House can approve its recommendations, which were unanimously supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position in his own constituency and in Wales as a whole. I have said that I shall look into this matter, but the first thing is to ensure that the Government's reply to this important report is published.

Mr. Maxton: In view of the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced an important document on the future of the colleges of education in Scotland, and in view of the almost unanimous rejection of those proposals by all education sectors in Scotland, will the

Leader of the House ensure that there is an early debate, either in the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. George: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will be dealing with the patriation of the Canadian constitution? In the light of the minefield that exists in terms of the constitutional, political and timetable aspects that Parliament, the Government and the Crown will face, will he consider referring the problem either to a Joint Select Committee of this House and the House of Lords or to any other Select Committee or Committee that may be appropriate for dealing with this googly that has been bowled to us by Prime Minister Trudeau?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's cricketing metaphor, and I am beginning to recognise a minefield when I see one. Practice makes perfect. I cannot give any undertaking about referring it to a Select Committee because, I am glad to say, the Government have received no request about the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. However, if and when such a request does arrive I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's most interesting suggestion.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FISHERIES MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 October.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
The Council reached agreement in principle on a draft control regulation, which firmly establishes that each member State is responsible for enforcement within its fishery limits and empowers the Commission to make sure that member States fulfil their obligations on this aspect. The aim is for the new regulation to enter into force from 1 January 1981. At the behest of the United Kingdom, the Commission agreed that it was necessary for the Commission regularly to monitor the manner in which member States were carrying out their enforcement duties so as to guarantee that there was a uniformity of application of the regulation throughout the Community.
The Commission undertook that prior to the conclusion of a fishing agreement they would provide a paper setting out the operational methods by which they would ensure that all member States were fulfilling their obligations.
We welcomed the Commission's initiative in commencing a review of the market support system, for which we have been pressing for some time. We indicated that the United Kingdom expected the Commission to produce specific proposals in the near future and stressed particularly the importance of setting withdrawal prices at realistic levels, the desirability of a flexible but not too complex system, the need to extend the list of species covered by it, the importance of export refunds and the need for action to prevent imports from disturbing markets.
The Council had a further discussion of the criteria on which quota allocations should be based. I reiterated in particular the need to make greater allowances for past losses of fishing opportunities in the waters of third countries.
and the need to discount from the historic record excessive catches of human consumption species taken in the industrial fishery. The Commission has undertaken to produce revised proposals for the next Council meeting on 17–18 November, when discussion is expected to concentrate on the actual quota allocations and also, at my insistence, on the question of access. Intensive preparations for the meeting will meanwhile be undertaken by a committee consisting of senior officials from each member country.

Mr. Mason: From the statement the House will recognise that some little progress is being made towards a new common fisheries policy. We all recognise that these are small and the least controversial steps, and that the crunch has yet to come, especially on share-out and access.
Will the right hon. Gentleman briefly tell us what was achieved at the September Council meeting on fish conservation measures?
As to the possibility of a monitoring system of recording and reporting catches, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, in spite of the suspected deal on timing, to delay beyond 1 January 1981 any Common Market fisheries policy if a monitoring task force is not established, and, more importantly, if the catch quota forced upon him does not satisfy the industry and the will of this House?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industry and ourselves are still deeply concerned that only 31 per cent. of the total Common Market pool catch has been offered to the United Kingdom? Our demand throughout, in the light of losses in third country waters, loss of historic rights, and what we regard as our legitimate share in the Common Market pond, has been for a 45 per cent. share. Is he still negotiating for that percentage?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman still pressing for a 12-mile exclusive belt and a dominant preference for our fishermen in a zone from 12 to 50 miles? I warn him that the industry is still suspicious of his negotiating posture. The industry fears a sell-out and that he will compromise our proper share of fish for some exclusivity. I hope that he will be able to deny that and give us assurances that that will not happen.

Mr. Walker: With regard to the vague pronouncements that the industry fears this and the industry says that, I meet members of the industry before every fishing Council and at every fishing Council. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that both before the fishing Council and at the fishing Council the fishing industry has expressed its total confidence in and support for the manner in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been negotiating this matter. I am not complaining about the right hon. Gentleman, but I object to the constant mention in the press about the industry saying this and saying that, because the people in the industry have every opportunity to say what they like to me. I therefore welcome the opportunity of making the position clear.
As for the September meeting, we agreed basically on the conservation measures, including the pout box. As the Minister of State said in reply to a parliamentary question, that was a very considerable achievement for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister of State negotiated it in Denmark. Had he failed to do so, on 1 October a substantial part of the pout box would have totally disappeared because of the legal action, started by the previous Government, that we lost. By skilful negotiation, my hon. Friend the Minister of State succeeded in obtaining what the fishing industry has told me it considers to be a very good deal.
With regard to the quotas that we are trying to obtain, I have never put and never would put a percentage figure upon the total catch. because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, various species are concerned. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the negotiating position I am happy for as large a figure as anyone wishes to express to be expressed as our desire, because I intend in no way to weaken the negotiating position that I have. Every argument that can be used for improving the British quotas is being used and will be used.
It was agreed by the Community that we would do everything in our power to reach agreement by 1 January. The United Kingdom stands firmly behind the objective of trying to achieve agreement by 1 January. For the British fishing industry there is nothing more essential than obtaining an agreement. The longer

we go before reaching an agreement, the weaker our negotiating position becomes. [Interruption.] That is a fact. I only wish that I had been negotiating this matter three years ago.
I am only too pleased that all member countries join in my view that it is right to try to reach an agreement as speedily as possible. That is why, at an informal meeting of the Ministers two days ago, we agreed a series of meetings that would speed up the process of negotiation.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am pleased to be able to say that I shall again be able to call those hon. Members who have already risen.

Sir Walter Clegg: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he will have the full support of the House in enforcing conservation measures, as conservation measures without enforcement are useless?
What thought is the Council of Ministers giving to providing help to those fishermen who are made redundant through no fault of their own but simply as a result of having to leave Icelandic and other waters? On all sides we hear about help being given to miners and steel workers. What help will be given to fishermen?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with his considerable interest in and knowledge of the industry, for the support that he has always given to our efforts to reach a successful conclusion.
The plight and difficulties of various sections of the fishing industry will be discussed in terms of what is described as the structural package for the industry. I think that, quite rightly, that comes at the end of the agenda, after we know the position on quotas and access. We shall be dealing at that time with the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Beith: What discussion was there about means of safeguarding the access of inshore fishermen to the waters immediately off our coasts? Was any threat posed to that access?

Mr. Walker: No threat was posed. Obviously, we have been having bilateral talks on the question. The important agreement at the Council was that we


should not discuss quotas alone. At the next meeting we shall discuss quotas, together with access. The hon. Gentle-man will agree that they are closely connected and that it is vital to discuss them together.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his very satisfactory statement is an essential prelude to the final negotiation on the common fisheries policy? Does he agree that there is now ample evidence that existing regulations are not being maintained? Will he therefore stand out for proper policing measures?
With regard to quotas and access, will there be specific proposals concerning the waters up to 12 miles and then beyond that, from 12 miles to 200 miles?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remark but, as the spokesman for the official Opposition said, the really tough and difficult part is quotas and access and not the various matters that we have so far agreed. What has been shown is that there is a desire to reach a genuine agreement between the member States.
It is essential that we have uniformity of enforcement. Although I supported the idea that each member State was responsible for enforcement within its 200-mile limit—and we have obtained that—I considered that on top of that it was essential that the Commission could see that every member State enforced the rules in the same way. That is why I am glad to say that the Commission accepted this British proposal, so that as well as being responsible within our own 200-mile limit—we know that we shall do that well—we shall have a guarantee that every other country will be made to do the same thing.

Mr. Jay: Although I realise that there have been specific quotas, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not accept a general figure as low as 31 per cent.?

Mr. Walker: I shall not deal with overall figures. I could simply answer "Yes". All the figures suggested so far are inadequate. The maximum figure has been 31 per cent. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the nature of the various species and their importance

to various fishing communities means that general figures have little substance. The easy answer is "Yes".

Mr. Warren: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, the resources required to enforce this opportunity—which I welcome—of looking after and policing our fishing territory? Who will pay? Will the cost be shared by the whole Community, regardless of the coastline and regardless of the 200 mile-limit waters for which they have responsibility?

Mr. Walker: I am in constant discussion with my right hon. Friend on this subject. My hon. Friend may know that I pay the operational costs involved out of my Department's budget. I pay tribute to those involved in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Air Force for the fine, remarkable job that they have done for many years.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the Minister's earlier statement, will he make the position clear beyond peradventure? There are only two months to go. If the right hon. Gentleman does not get a settlement that suits this House by the end of the year what will our position, as a fishing nation, be?

Mr. Walker: The industry knows that it is to our advantage to obtain a good, sensible agreement. As I am negotiating, it would be absurd for me to talk about what I would do if I did not obtain a sensible agreement. I am optimistic about achieving a sensible agreement. Good progress is being made. I have no complaint about any member countries in terms of the constructive way in which they are trying to enter the talks. It is therefore right to join in the general spirit of the Council and to say that I hope that we are heading towards a sensible and satisfactory result for the United Kingdom. It would be a sad thing for the fishing industry if we did not reach one.

Sir Albert Costain: When the Minister negotiates the quota system will he bear in mind that our inshore fishermen play a great part in manning the lifeboats? When ships are in distress they do not worry about nationality. We need to keep our small fleets for that reason.

Mr. Walker: The British fishing industry performs a very important service to shipping of every description. In addition, some communities in Britain are completely dependent on the fishing industry. For a combination of national security, humanitarian and community reasons, it is important to obtain a good fishing agreement.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that fishermen in my constituency will welcome the remarks made by my right hon. Friend and the progress that is being made towards a conclusion of the common fisheries policy. We are all aware that there has been a tremendous amount of cheating on the part of foreign nations within our waters. Can we be certain that the policing will be adequate, and that the penalties will be a strong enough deterrent to wipe out such cheating, which has reduced the stocks available to our fishermen?

Mr. Walker: I accept that enforcement is the key to a successful policy. I am glad that we shall be responsible for enforcement within our own 200 mile limit. I am also glad that the Commission will constantly monitor the situation to ensure that other countries enforce the regulations in the same effective way.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is wide admiration for the skill and determination that he has shown in welding together strongly felt local interests, which often conflict, into the wider national interest? It is in the national interest to have a common fisheries policy that is effectively policed and that requires a minimum of joint action by the Commission, and by the institutions of the European Community.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is a great advantage to have a European policy of conservation, policing and monitoring, because it is in the interests not only of our fishermen but of the future fishing industry of Europe. Such a policy will give long-term stability to our fishing industry and to the European fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Front Bench, I shall call the hon. Gentleman who has been rising from the Liberal Bench, although he was not here to hear the statement, or most of the ques-

tions. He has not been rising to catch my eye.

Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Minister name a nation, from those referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), that has ignored conservation laws more than the Scots have done in Cornwall in relation to mackerel?

Mr. Walker: I do not want to start a civil war.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister intend to secure the phasing out of historic rights within the 12-mile limit? Will he assure the House that he is determined to secure a dominant preference for British fishermen within 12 miles and 50 miles?

Mr. Walker: Historic rights and access will be discussed at the next Council meeting. We are holding bilateral talks with those countries interested not only in historic rights in Britain but in other countries, such as Denmark. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment on the specific proposals that we shall make in relation to historic rights prior to those talks, one of which will take place later today. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude to historic rights is based on conserving an effective 12-mile limit and on having an area of priority fishing beyond that limit for certain communities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered.

That at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to Procedure, Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills), Special Standing Committees, Standing Committee on European Community Documents, European Community Legislation, Procedure (Supply), Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.), Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees), Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees), and Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, any Amendments to the first Motion which have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; that the Motions relating to Supply, Questions on Amendments, Amend-


ments to Bills, Leave of Absence for Mr. Speaker, Nomination of Select Committees, Committal of Bills, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of the said Motions has been entered upon, whichever is the later; and that if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of by that hour Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of them——

[Mr. Boscawen]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move the first motion, it might help if I were to make clear to the House that the terms of the business motion to which the House has just agreed provide for two separate debates. The debate upon which we are about to embark covers items 1 to 10 on the Order Paper and is due to finish at 10 o'clock, when all the necessary Questions will be put on the motions and on the various amendments that I have selected. A list of amendments is available in the Lobby, in the usual way. During the first debate it will not be in order to discuss items 11 to 18, comment on which should be reserved for the separate debate of one and a half hours' duration, which will begin as soon as item 10 has been disposed of.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can help the House a little further. Your concluding sentence complies that you wish to take the substance of motions 1 to 10 during discussion on the first motion and that the motions and any amendments will then be moved formally. The alternative implication is that the first debate will involve procedure motion No. 1 with its amendment, and that we shall proceed thereafter on separate debates.

Mr. Speaker: If the House wishes, we shall have a debate on all 10. We shall cover items 1 to 10 until 10 o'clock. At 10 o'clock, I shall put any amendments that hon. Members may wish to move on those first items.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having made earlier enquiries. There are a number of items to which several amendments have been tabled. If one is to try to cover not only the substance of motion No. 1 but also several amendments to different motions—as is true in my case and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—in one speech, and if they are all to be decided at 10 pm, the House will be in great difficulty. I regret not having made the orginal inquiry, but I had expected that we would be taking motion No. 1 with its amendment and No. 2 seriatim


throughout together with the amendments as they came.

Mr. Speaker: It may be that the hon. Gentleman will have no discussion at all on some of the matters that he wishes to raise if that is so. Even if we follow the advice of the hon. Member, the House has decided that at 10 o'clock I must put the Questions on motions Nos. 1 to 10. If it pleases the House better—it is not without precedent—to group matters together to enable Members to make their respective speeches across the broad spectrum—we did it recently with amendments on salaries, and so on—there is nothing to stop us from moving seriatim. However, I hope that there will be no complaint if the further amendments have to be put without discussion at the end.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr Norman St. John-Stevas): rose——

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House rose to begin his speech.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was not raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was getting up to begin my oration.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House may rest for the moment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have passed the business motion, Mr. Speaker. I am relatively new to this procedure, but, as I understand it, in general this procedure has been adopted in procedure debates. I am not sure that this is technically a point of order. My right hon. and hon. Friends have some interesting amendments on the Order Paper. Do we assume that at the end of the debate the Leader of the House will wind up so that, if my right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken, they will not be able to speak a second time, but at least the reply by the Leader of the House to their points will be made before we vote?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is my intention, with the permission of the House.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that we are to have just one debate from now until 10 o'clock covering all these subjects and with votes at the end? It does not appear to me to be a logical or convenient way to act, but, if that is the decision no doubt it is possible to carry on that way. I understand that that is what is intended.

Mr. Speaker: I agree that that is what we are embarking upon. We are to have one wide debate in which Members may make their separate points and have a reply at the end.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have followed this procedure on two previous occasions and it has worked reasonably well. We have had our general debate and Members have been able to vote at the end. It has worked satisfactorily.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to put the Question separately on paragraph (8) of amendment (a) to motion No. 1? There is a special reason. The proposed new Standing Order appears on the Order Paper with the side heading
Instruments subject to affirmative procedure.
However, when one gets to paragraph (8) one discovers that that refers not to instruments but to measures. Measures are totally different. The arguments for and against that are different from the arguments concerning instruments. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Questions were put, say, on paragraphs (1) to (7), then on paragraph (8) and then on paragraphs (9) to (14). That would enable the House, if it wished, to pass the amendment in so far as it is compatible with the side heading on the Order Paper but not as it applies to measures, for which the arguments are totally different. Alternatively, if, in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that is inconvenient, would you accept a manuscript amendment merely to leave out paragraph (8) of this amendment, which is the other way of doing it?

Mr. Speaker: As regards a manuscript amendment, I should point out that the hon. Member had the opportunity of tabling an amendment if he felt strongly about it, because this is not the first day that this amendment has been on the Order Paper. It is one amendment. It would be a very untidy business if I started by saying that we would deal with this one clause by clause. It is one amendment, proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) does not like it, his choice is to reject all of it.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of recommendations (4) to (30) and (66) to (70) of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1977–78.
I believe that this is an important day in the history of the House of Commons, because the House has the opportunity of completing its work in relation to the epoch-making report on procedure which was published just over two years ago, the Committee having been appointed in June 1976.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), the Chairman of the Committee, on the important work that he and the members of the Committee performed in relation to the report. With that I should like to associate my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his zeal and judgment in enabling matters, I trust, to have a happy ending today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to start the debate in the right atmosphere. He said that the House had the opportunity of completing the work done by the Select Committee, to which he referred in kindly terms. I hope that he will in some way recognise that we cannot do that unless we make progress on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), because that deals with the statutory instruments procedure, a major part of the Committee's work, which is not dealt with in the motions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That may be so, but it has been open to any Member of the House to put down amendments, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham,

West (Mr. English). I welcome his amendment. I should have welcomed any amendments which other hon. Members might have put down.
At the general election there was a pledge in the constitutional section of the Conservative Party's manifesto which welcomed the report and promised that the House would be given an early chance of coming to a decision on its proposals.
There were 76 recommendations in six different sections. Clearly it would have been impossible to dispose of all those at a stroke. Therefore, the matter has been before the House on three separate occasions. The first was 25 June 1979, when the 14 Select Committees were set up constituting the system of departmentally related Select Committees. The second was 31 October 1979, when a wide variety of lesser but important proposals was put before the House, including the recommendations of the 10 Sessional Committees which had been lying about neglected literally for years. Eighteen motions were put forward on that occasion covering matters such as Sessions and sittings, early morning sittings on Fridays, the Opposition's right to vote on their own motions on Supply days, the experiment inaugurated by Mr. Speaker limiting the length of speeches by hon. Members at certain times on Second Reading debates and the motion, which was defeated, to modify the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Now, almost exactly a year later, on 30 October 1980, the House has an opportunity to decide on the remaining recommendations of the Procedure Committee with amendments.
The motions cover three particular areas: first, the Public Bill procedure; secondly, European legislation; and, thirdly, the manner in which the House handles financial matters and Supply.
Looking back to the beginning of the Session, we have been beset by many vicissitudes before reaching the point we have arrived at today. Not everyone is an enthusiast for reform of our procedures. When the Committees were set up, there were some who wished to go no further. Nevertheless, the second stage was reached on schedule and now, after very considerable difficulties, we have arrived at the third stage.
This is the fourth date that I have proposed for the third stage of the proceedings. For a full account of the saga, the


House will have to await my memoirs. But I recall setting this down in August; it was then swept away by a little local difficulty; and earlier this week there was another one, the Home Secretary's Bill on imprisonment. At last, however, we have arrived and I am reasonably hopeful that nothing is likely to happen to postpone a vote on these matters yet again.
The motions before us today are hardly intelligible unless they are seen in the wider context of the role of parliamentary government and procedure. Of course, parliamentary government is a misnomer. Apart from that unfortunate interlude in the seventeenth century—and we all know what happened then—Parliament has never made any claim to govern. The function of government is carried out in reality by the Cabinet.
Since the second Reform Act of 1867, the Cabinet has succeeded in dominating the legislative programme, with certain exceptions. The House of Commons, apart, alas, from the restricted role of the private Member, no longer initiates legislation. The power of initiating legislation has passed in practice to the Cabinet. The powers which undoubtedly remain to this House are, first, that this House legitimises the decisions and proposals of the Cabinet and, secondly, scrutinises them and the legislation and the other measures which are placed before the House by the Government or on occasions by private Members.
In order to fulfil this second function, the function of checking and scrutiny, we rely upon our procedures. We have no constitution in this country; we have only procedure—hence its importance.
Our debate today may lack the flash and the sparkle, and the thunder and the lightning, of yesterday's occasion, when we had the added excitement of the two principal candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party paraded before us. I reflect, by comparison with that choice, that the American people are being offered in the presidential election there an embarras de richesse. I congratulate the Shadow Leader of the House on his witty and brilliant speech yesterday, but I do not know that it will do him much good. People are suspicious of witticisms. They associate them with Oscar Wilde and other undesirable persons. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "Like you."] Unlike me—but

Mr. Wilde had the further disadvantage of being an author. The truth is that in politics it is safer to be a co-respondent than a wit.

Mr. Michael English: Charles Dilke.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That rather proves my point.
In order to fulfil its role, Parliament has continually to renew its procedures. At certain points, we have had really major changes. One such moment came in the 1870s, when the Government were in the process of taking over the arrangements of this House from the private Member and arrogating them to themselves. Then, in the 1880s, owing to the disrupting tactics of Parnell and the Irish party, we had the closure introduced, which was followed by the guillotine. In the early 1900s, we had the Balfour reforms, and in the 1960s we had the changes introduced by Richard Cross-man. In the 1980s, we have another opportunity in this House to change and develop our procedures.
Behind all these debates and reforms there is a single unifying purpose: to redress the imbalance which has developed between Whitehall and Westminster and to enable the Commons to exercise its legislative and scrutiny functions more efficiently and effectively.
That is why one can claim—and I did claim it—that the setting up of the departmentally related Select Committees was one of the most important parliamentary reforms of the century. Some people thought that that was hyperbole. Understatement has never been by strong suit, but I believe that, in the experience that we have had of the working of these Committees up to now, those words have been fully justified. The dynamic contribution that these Committees have made has affected not only the Westminster scene but the Whitehall scene as well. That contribution has been made not only on specific matters; their influence is felt throughout the Government. No one, for example, who has studied the activities of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee could doubt that that Committee is an extremely influential part of the governmental protest—process

Mr. Bob Cryer: A Freudian slip.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: None of us is perfect—except. of course, the hon. Gentleman.
I attended that Committee the other day, and I was extremely impressed by the contrast between the in-depth interrogation and dialogue which was possible between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee and the somewhat perfunctory exchange of views which takes place at a normal Question Time. It is not that I think that Question Time is unimportant, but one can pursue a question in depth at a Select Committee in a way which is valuable both to Ministers and the members of the Committee.
Thus, I believe that these Committees are dispelling the view, widely held a decade ago, that Parliament has become a mere amateur body incapable of scrutinising effectively the work of the Executive. Not all Ministers welcome this fact, but every Minister has co-operated to the full with the work of these Committees.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: rose——

Mr. English: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I proposed to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), but then I must get on. The hon. Gentleman will have his own opportunities to speak.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I listened with care to my right hon. Friend's eulogy of the new Committee system. However, I wonder whether he has devoted any scrutiny to the amount of time which the Whitehall machine now has to devote to these Committees, because I think that he should do so in order to assure himself that the additional load which has been placed on the Whitehall machine is justified by the product.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have had no complaints at all from any civil servant about the work of these Committees. The Civil Service has co-operated fully with the Committees. I do not take my hon. Friend's premise. One should not think of it in terms of a load being placed on Whitehall. It is the duty of Whitehall to meet the needs of this House and the citizens whom we represent.
In preparation for this debate, I had, as right hon. and hon. Members will

know, consulted very widely in the House before the recess. These consultations showed, on the one hand, a general wish for Parliament to continue to adapt its procedures to provide more effective scrutiny. They also showed a recognition that Governments, of whatever party, have a legitimate need to secure the passage of their legislation. Those are the two aims that I have had to keep in balance.
There is one other general point that I should like to emphasise. We have to ensure that the procedures of the House do not place unreasonable or unnecessary demands on hon. Members. The House already carries a heavy legislative burden and the hours of sitting, taking account of Select Committees and Standing Committees, are long by the standards of other legislatures. It is the Government's aim that in future Sessions the burden of legislation in the House can be made less onerous by the simple expedient, although difficult to achieve in practice, of having less of it.
In the first group concerning Public Bill procedure, the most important recommendation is recommendation (5), whereby
Standing Committees … should in future be permitted to have up to three sittings in select committee form for the purpose of taking evidence in public.
As the House will see, the Government have tabled a motion based on that recommendation. I must make clear the basis on which we have done so.
Looking at the evidence given to the Procedure Committee and taking account of my recent consultations, there can be no doubt that many hon. Members find the present line-by-line scrutiny of legislation in Standing Committee an inadequate means of examining a Bill. It is equally clear, however, that there are very different views on the best way of improving the present procedure. Some would like a pre-legislation Committee set up to examine proposals before Bills are introduced. My personal preference would be in that direction.
Others would like the majority of Bills examined through the Select Committee procedure as well as, or instead of, the present Standing Committee arrangements. The Procedure Committee's recommendation is very much in the nature of a compromise between leaving things


as they are and these more radical proposals.
The Government's view is that acceptance of the recommendation would provide a means of improving the scrutiny of some of the Bills that come before us, especially where the differences of opinion cut across party lines. What we have in mind is that we should next Session undertake an experiment with the new procedure and, if the House accepts the motion that we have tabled, select perhaps three Government Bills which raise substantial issues, not of acute party controversy, and refer them to a special Standing Committee.
The Procedure Committee itself recognised the need for any Government to retain control of the legislative timetable, and that is why the motion proposes that the new evidence-taking session should be concluded within 28 days from the date of the committal of the Bill.
It is in the nature of any experiment that the way in which it works will emerge only as we gain experience. My consultations have, however, shown a real anxiety that the new procedures should not compromise the accepted impartiality of the present Chairmen of Standing Committees. That is why we are seeking power for you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to nominate a right honourable or honourable Member to take the chair during the new evidence-taking sessions when, if the practice of the present Select Committees is followed, the Chairman will play an active part.
I would expect that Government Departments and interested outside organisations would be invited to give evidence to the new Committees, but that is a matter for the Committees. The Minister in charge of a Bill referred to a special Standing Committee will, of course, be a member of the Committee throughout its proceedings, and be able both to take part, if that is appropriate, in the questioning of witnesses, and himself to appear as a witness at the evidence-taking sessions if that is necessary. I believe that conventions will be worked out to facilitate this novel and dual role of assistance to the Committee. Other Ministers with an interest in the Bills concerned will make themselves available to give evidence as required by the Committees.
The motion before the House provides for this experiment to be undertaken for a single Session, but we might well need to prolong it beyond that before reaching a final judgment on its effectiveness.
We also ask the House to agree to an experiment—I shall find the right notation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can we help?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, why not? If my hon. Friend wishes to do so, certainly.

Mr. English: rose——

Mr. Frank Hooley: rose——

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. English: Perhaps it will help if I make the intervention now that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to make at a later stage. He said earlier that every Minister had assisted the Select Committees. He should make it clear that there is one exception to that. The Lord Chancellor has not assisted in that way because his entire responsibility is cut out of the Home Affairs Committee's jurisdiction. That means, for example, that the Home Affairs Committee could, if it wished, discuss the Security Services of the State but could not discuss the Public Record Office.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I listened to most of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have taken it on board and I shall be interested to hear it further adumbrated should the hon. Gentleman catch the eye of the Chair.
I turn to the experiment covering the same Bills on the lines of recommendation (6) in the Procedure Committee's report. A special Standing Committee could reconvene before reporting the Bill to the House for the purpose of considering amendments arising from undertakings given in Committee. We shall have to see whether this succeeds in saving subsequent time on Report. I should perhaps add that Hansard will be responsible for reporting the proceedings in these Committees. I understand that this may have implications for the present rules


on making transcripts available to Members.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose——

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be grateful if I am allowed to continue and perhaps to reply to any issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises at the end of the debate, otherwise I shall not get through what I have to say.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, but I think that it would be germane if at this stage the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that we are here being asked to combine in one Standing Order two completely separate experiments directed to completely different problems, and that there is no reason why the new type of Standing Committee should be an appropriate test bed for the second experiment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that point, but we must see how these experiments work. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's intervention and return to it when I reply to the debate.
Recommendation (8) proposes the prescription by Standing Order of minimum intervals between the stages of Bills, and recommendation (9) proposes a number of changes in the present procedures for guillotine motions. The Government accept the spirit of both these recommendations. I hope the House would agree, that it is not necessary to enshrine them in Standing Orders.
As regards guillotines, I think I can legitimately claim at the end of a very long and busy Session that the Government, unlike some of their predecessors, have been sparing in the use of the guillotine. But if the precise recommendations of the Procedure Committee were embodied in Standing Orders it might on occasion mean that more time would be taken up in what are never very constructive debates.
I turn now to the section of the report dealing with delegated legislation. The House will see that the Government have not tabled any motions recommending implementations in this section of the report. I should explain why. It is certainly not because we regard the recommendations as unimportant or be-

cause we think that the present arrangements are in all respects satisfactory. But we believe that the proposals made by the Procedure Committee have their own difficulties. For instance—recommendation (15)—it is both our view and our practice that debates on statutory instruments and prayers should not be held until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has had the opportunity to consider the instrument concerned. But there must occasionally arise circumstances—and Ministers will do all they can to keep them as few as possible—when there is an overriding need for an immediate debate.
The most important recommendation in this group is probably recommendation (18), which seeks to give more powers to the existing Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. The problem here is that the changes proposed would lengthen the time spent by Members in these Committees and would require more Members to be present, and it is not always easy to secure Members' attendance. On balance, we have concluded that we should not advise the House to make these particular changes.
Finally, in dealing with delegated legislation, there are recommendations (19), (20) and (21). They are addressed to the House and its Committees rather than to the Government. It is not, in our view, necessary to make any amendment to Standing Orders to achieve the object of these recommendations.
I express the appreciation of the House to the two Chairmen of the Standing Committees who are here today for the work that they do. It is very dreary and painstaking work. It takes up a great deal of time and does not receive much recognition. It is in the best traditions of this House that the work is voluntarily undertaken by hon. Members.
I now turn, if I may, to the recommendations on European Community legislation. This is a subject of considerable interest to Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I go through the relevant recommendations—(22) to (30)—in a fair amount of detail.
I am happy to endorse the recommendations—(23) and (24)—that there should be no extension of the powers of the


Select Committee in European legislation and that departmentally related Select Committees should be free to consider the merits of European Community documents within their own sphere of influence. It must be right that consideration of merits falls to the specialist Committees. I congratulate the Scrutiny Committee on implementing recommendation (24) to supply the Select Committees with material relating to documents in their own field. The Government are also willing to supply such material in the usual way.
Recommendation (25) is a key recommendation. It recommends a declaratory resolution setting out the circumstances in which the Government should be permitted to give their approval to European Community legislation. I say "European Community" as we are concerned with legislation made under the Euratom Treaty and European Coal and Steel Community Treaty as well as under the European Economic Community Treaty itself. As witnessed by the undertaking I gave the House on 13 July last year, the Government readily agree that wherever possible the House should have the opportunity to discuss documents recommended to it by the Scrutiny Committee prior to agreement being given in Brussels. I believe that the House would value a voluntary undertaking being framed as a declaratory resolution of the House.
Both the Government and the Scrutiny Committee have thought long about the content of such a resolution. I am happy that the Scrutiny Committee has reached a similar conclusion to our own. The resolution embodied in the motion we have tabled follows very closely the wording provided by the Scrutiny Committee. In so doing, it departs from the suggestion of the Procedure Committee, which favoured a firm commitment never to give final approval to a document which still requires debate. I do not think that this is realistic; and I am not convinced that a totally binding resolution would best serve the interests of the United Kingdom.
Of course, the Government should make every effort to ensure that a debate is held, but we cannot avoid the rare occasion when world and Community events move so fast that there is no time to do so. Our Summer Recess alone can give rise to problems because the Council of Min-

isters meets in every month except for August. I consider that the provision that a Minister must at the first opportunity explain to the House the reason for giving agreement prior to a debate should safeguard that exceptions to the general rule are made only when it is absolutely necessary. And I believe our practice since the election has followed that course.

Mr. Julius Silverman: One of the questions that has been raised is how the report of the Scrutiny Committee should be given to the House. I intend to deal with that later.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be interested to hear any suggestions from the hon. Member about that report.
I turn to the recommendations that the Government should provide time for debates. Time has passed since the recommendations were made and I think that these are largely met. It has become the general practice to table motions which express a view of the proposals under debate. I shall certainly consider any suggestions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) makes.
If come now to the important recommendation (28) concerning Standing Committee procedure. As the House will see from the motion, we have recognised that consideration of European Community documents is different from that of our own statutory instruments and have therefore tabled separate Standing Orders. The House has not found the existing procedure satisfactory and it has therefore been necessary to take many documents at a late hour on the Floor of the House. The Procedure Committee suggested detailed changes. I believe the core to be that the debate should take place on an amendable motion which puts all debates on Community documents, whether on the Floor or upstairs, on a par and that up to two and a half hours should be allowed.
From my soundings, I do not think that there is a general will to abolish the right of 20 or more Members to block a reference upstairs. Nor do I see a need to complicate the Orders by adding that where a reference is blocked time must be found within seven days on the Floor. I hope that the House will agree that a two-arid-a-half-hour discussion on an


amendable motion at a reasonable time of day is a considerable improvement.
Recommendation (29), to keep the House informed of the progress of documents through the often lengthy proceedings of Community institutions, presents real practical problems. We have to balance the work involved in relation to the end achieved. Updated explanatory memoranda are submitted where proposals have been significantly altered; these will continue to be provided, as and when appropriate. We will as far as we can ensure that the Scrutiny Committee has further information about the proposals recommended for debate and about the likely timing of Council consideration.
New procedures have largely met recommendation (30) on the Definition of Treaties Orders. The Procedure Committee also asked that the explanatory memoranda printed at the back of such orders should be more informative. We shall use our best endeavours to see that further factual information can be given without misleading the House as to the purpose of the order. The title of treaties which are the subject of such orders are now included as a matter of course in the title of the draft order.
Finally, on European legislation, I propose to use the opportunity presented by this debate to make slight changes in Standing Orders by changing references to "Commission documents" to "European Community documents" so that they will be brought in line once again with the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European legislation.
The third major proposal put forward this afternoon concerns financial control by the House of Commons. In the long run this could prove the most important sphere of all. The whole power and influence of the House of Commons ultimately rest on two things—the power of the Commons to grant Supply and the power of the Commons to regulate expenditure.
The fundamental principle has been established for centuries. In 1407 the principle first saw the light of day. It was then established that financial matters should be initiated in the House of Commons. We have accepted that all taxes and burdens imposed on the nation for the purpose of the State must be granted

by Parliament. That principle fully established itself in 1688. The Bill of Rights reaffirmed it and brought to an end the financial policies that had been followed by the Tudors and the Stuarts. It has also been accepted since 1713 by what was Standing Order No. 89 that any increase in expenditure must be initiated by the Government.
There is no doubt about the importance and clarity of the principle. However, there is grave doubt about the practice. We have our means of controlling financial matters. There are the Budget debate, the Finance Bill, the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Estimates. These are the great events of the Commons financial year. But it is also true that much of the control in relation to the Estimates is formal rather than real. Supply days existed for the purpose of debating Estimates. They have been appropriated by the Opposition for their own purposes. That is perfectly legitimate, but it means that there is often no detailed scrutiny of Estimates.
The other point to which I draw the House's attention is that we have not benefited from the divorce of the debates on expenditure from the consideration of taxation. It was a happy advance when in this year's Budget the expenditure White Paper and the Budget proposals were brought together.

Mr. Hooley: By accident.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: O felix culpa.
Widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed in different parts of the House, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The matter was considered to some extent in the Procedure Committee report, but it was not considered in the depth that is required.
I can deal quite briefly with the specific recommendations in the Procedure Committee report about the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, recommendations (66) to (68), which have been overtaken by the publication earlier this year of the Green Paper about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Government are awaiting the comments of those who have been


consulted, not least those from the Public Accounts Committee.
The Procedure Committee recommended that departmental Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, should be referred to the departmentally related Select Committees. Action has been taken to provide the Committees with proof copies of the Supplementary Estimates, as recommended in the first special report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. I hope that the Committees will make use of this material.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Green Paper on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General legitimises the gradual transfer that has been taking place over the years of control over the Comptroller and his Department from this House to the Government, particularly to the Treasury? That fits ill with his protestations about wanting to enhance the power of the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not believe that that is so. The paper expresses an opinion of the Government. It is in the form of a Green Paper, not a White Paper. It does not contain any decisions of the Government and there is no final view in it.
More important than those recommendations is the fact that the Procedure Committee recognised that the system by which the House controls Supply is in need of radical review. I share that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The motion on the Order Paper accordingly provides for the establishment of a Select Committee at the beginning of the next Session to examine the whole of our present procedures for considering and voting on Government requests for Supply. Its effectiveness in the future must be one of the principal concerns of all those who care for the maintenance and strengthening of our parliamentary system.
The range of matters within that review would include—and I give these purely as examples—procedures for the examination of departmental Estimates, Supply day procedures and procedures for the consideration of the Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills. The task of the new Committee will be to examine those and other matters within its terms of

reference and to consider in what way the role of the House in that critical field can be made a more effective reality.
I shall do all that I can, if the House agrees to the motion, to enable the Committee to be established as soon as possible in the next Session. I am sure, too—and this is a matter for the Committee—that it will complete its work as quickly as is consistent with the importance of the subject.
The power of Parliament is, in theory, unlimited. It is a fundamental doctrine of our constitution that the Queen in Parliament is supreme. It is not a dead doctrine, but it is not applied fully and at all times. Nevertheless, the power is there potentially, ready to be called forth once again at the will of this House at any time. I believe that these reforms and proposals give the House of Commons another opportunity to adapt itself to the needs and signs of the time in an evolutionary but effective way. Hon. Members have an opportunity to restore Parliament to the centre of the political stage. The opportunity has been given by the Government, but how far it is taken depends on the attitude of hon. Members.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House referred to the general support in the House for the changes in parliamentary procedure. "General" is the right word, because we should not include everyone. That is why the Shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who spoke with such wit last night, is not here and I am. For this purpose today, I am Shadow Leader.
I, too, pay tribute to the development in this Session of the new Select Committees. There have been excellent reports. The report of the Home Affairs Committee on the "sus" laws shows the great value of such Committees. Their role is evolving. However, there is an overlap in the work of many of the Committees that we are setting up and we shall have to consider that.
I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I am not making a political point, but the way that the Committee has obtained from the Chancellor facts and figures of monetary policy,


for example, is of the greatest importance. I spent the Summer Recess looking through back papers from the Northern Ireland Office, where I was Secretary of State. It is quite different from the big Departments of State.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is writing his memoirs.

Mr. Rees: I am not writing memoirs in what has come to be the generally accepted sense of the term. I love my fellow men—and women.
Certain decision-making in a Department is inappropriate to put to a Select Committee. However, very valuable information comes from the work of these Committees. I pay tribute to them.
I deal next with what I consider to be the next development and do not follow the order on the Order Paper. A Select Committee should be set up to examine the procedure for voting on the Government's requests for Supply. The right hon. Gentleman gave a brief and interesting analysis of the developments over the centuries. There is also an interesting article in The House Magazine by Charles Winnifrith. The report in 1977–78 did not discuss procedure, but it is time that we did.
When I was responsible for a large Department I was conscious that I could not have a real idea about the way that the moneys in the Estimates were built up. It is one thing to have any argument, as we do in this House, about the totality of public expenditure, but the detail should be looked at outside the Department concerned. That is an important development which I commend.
As regards the Public Bill procedure, there is an interesting section in the report on the role of parliamentary procedure—adequate explanation, safeguarding the rights of those affected by Bills and so on. We know of the role of Green and White Papers over the years, but I have no doubt that the normal Standing Committee is too often a charade. It betrays a lack of knowledge, which all of us share, and the system is time-consuming. When I was first elected to the House about 20 years ago, the one aim in life of older Members was never to get on a Standing Committee. Some hon., and subsequently

right hon., Members made a claim to fame from not having been asked to serve on a Standing Committee.
There is a need for a fact-collecting stage. Time is a problem. Perhaps I should have listened more carefully to the Leader of the House or read the Order Paper more carefully, but I am not clear whether it is intended that the Chairman should be the same right hon. Member or hon. Member who is the Chairman of what I call the normal Standing Committee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The suggestion is that the Chairman should be a different Chairman, who would be appointed by Mr. Speaker. The suggestion came from the Panel of Chairmen. It could, for example, be the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee or it could be another person appointed by the Panel.

Mr. Rees: It is important that the Chairman should be neutral in both circumstances; and we shall have to return to this point in the debate.
As to the sort of Bills that will be involved, when discussions took place through the usual channels some months ago it seemed that we were talking about non-controversial Bills. When the Home Secretary first mentioned a nationality Bill I suggested on the Floor of the House that it would be an appropriate Bill to put through the fact-finding procedure. It is a complicated matter and I tremble to think what will happen if we do not have a fact-finding exercise on the Bill before it goes to Standing Committee. We could land ourselves in trouble and not do justice to the subject.
The only Committee that I served on in this Session was that on the Broadcasting Bill, chaired by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). That was not a controversial Bill. Indeed, I do not regard nationality as controversial in the normal sense of the term. Our proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill would have been very much better if we had had a fact-finding exercise, because, with respect to hon. Members who served on the Committee, a great deal of our discussion was a waste of time.
What criteria are the Government putting forward in regard to non-controversial Bills? The Leader of the House suggested that the same Standing Committee


will look at undertakings given by Ministers. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that that was not a recommendation by the Procedure Committee. I can see difficulties in that respect, because the first bite of the cherry is fact-finding, and the third bite is fact-finding of a different nature.

Mr. Spearing: The recommendation of the Select Committee was for a re-run procedure on undertakings given in normal Standing Committees, but the Select Committee did not link that with the present proposals for special Committees.

Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to hear views on that matter from both sides of the House.
I was not much involved in EEC legislation in the previous Government, but we have learnt of the debates, arguments and changes that took place in relation to that legislation. I read with interest in the report that at some stage the appropriate Select Committee might look at the merits of European legislation. That is why I said earlier that there is an overlapping in some developments and we shall have to be careful that that does not go too far. There must be clarity of responsibility.
I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friends who have tabled amendments on this matter. We shall have a free vote and my hon. Friends are making appropriate and relevant points. I do not propose to go further than that at this stage.
The declaratory resolution puts the existing practice of the House in the form of a resolution and I support that. There is an amendment down to that and, because of the difficulties of procedure, I propose to leave the matter to the hon. Members who support that amendment rather than to rehearse all the arguments now.
Certainly, as regards the responsibilities of the House, this is not the end of the matter. We are dealing with procedural matters and not the basic argument about the role of the Community and the way that it has influenced the House, but there is no doubt that we shall return to that subject in greater depth in future months and years.
The statutory instruments section of the Procedure Committee report has been left out and I listened carefully to the Leader of the House's explanation of

that. We all know that strong feelings have been expressed on both sides of the House by those who have had responsibility for business management in successive Governments.
The Leader of the House said that he had had enough trouble and would not reveal all until he wrote his memoirs. He knows those on the Opposition side who have doubts about the Procedure Committee's recommendations and we know who have doubts on the Government side. We ought to consider those arguments. If we are to get the development we seek, we shall have to convince right hon. and hon. Members—and most of those concerned are right hon. Members—that the House is not building in a system that will clog up the business and make it difficult for Governments, Chief Whips and future Leaders of the House to get their business through. The fear is that we are suggesting a clogging mechanism, whatever else our aims may be. It is important to indicate, though perhaps I am not doing it as delicately as I should, that there are strong forces on both sides of the House who believe that the Procedure Committee's recommendation is a device for making sure that Governments will not get their business through with alacrity.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take the opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt and to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in getting the propoasls before the House. Throughout, he has been constructive, progressive and all those nice-sounding words that we like to have applied to ourselves. I am most grateful to him.

Mr. Rees: I did not have to take a decision and I am jolly glad about that. I would probably have been as unsuccessful as the right hon. Gentleman was. I am grateful for what he has said. We must answer the criticism that the recommendation of the Procedure Committee would lead to problems for a Government in getting their business through. We move slowly in procedure matters, and the Leader of the House deserves praise for the changes that he has made in this Session.
This evening there is a free vote. In general, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, I commend the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes to


the House. We should listen most carefully to the arguments relating to the amendments on the Order Paper. I have learnt from dipping my toe into the waters of parliamentary procedure in the course of the last Session that there is a fund of knowledge among a relatively small number of right hon. and hon. Members who are present for this debate. I shall listen carefully to the arguments that they put before deciding how to vote.

Mr. Paul Dean: I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that this is one of the most important debates in the House of Commons this Session and it will remain important for some time to come. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. This Session is already noteworthy for the introduction of the new Select Committees, which, in a comparatively short time, have made a major mark not only on our parliamentary procedures in the House but on the more effective disciplines that Parliament is now exerting on the Government of the day, restoring the authority of this House.
All too often in the past, parties in Opposition have been enthusiastic for parliamentary reform, but the minute that they come into Government that enthusiasm evaporates. They can find a whole series of arguments for not bringing reforms before the House. The present Leader of the House has been an exception. The fact that we are now debating a second major series of reforms in one Session shows that my right hon. Friend intends to make his mark as Leader in helping to restore the authority of this place.
I wish to confine my remarks largely to the suggestion relating to the Special Standing Committees. I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its gratitude to those hon. Members who served on the Select Committee and who produced this suggestion. It has been my good fortune in 16 years in this House to serve in almost every conceivable capacity on Standing Committees. I share the reaction of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. If one serves as a Back Bencher in Opposition on a Stand-

ing Committee, one is encouraged to speak. Often if one serves as a Government Back Bencher one is encouraged to do something else and not to speak, so that the Government of the day can get their business. I have also served on the Opposition Front Bench in Standing Committees and as a Minister piloting Bills through Standing Committees. More recently, in this Parliament, I have presided over Standing Committees as a member of the Chairman's Panel.
This varied experience has left with me three strong impressions about Standing Committees as they now exist. First, they are losing their value as an effective means of probing the details of legislation, line by line and clause by clause. Secondly, what is called the adversarial character of Standing Committees does not lend itself to dealing properly with the complexity of modern Bills. Thirdly, the procedure is too late. By the time a Bill gets into Standing Committee it is in a rigid mould. The Government are too committed to it. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the time is right to change in the directions now proposed.
It is understandable why these developments have happened and why the traditional Standing Committee procedure should have been overtaken by events and the complexities of modern life. It is understandable that Governments of all political colours have found it appropriate, indeed necessary, to consult outside interests at an early stage before they draft the details of their legislation. We have reached the stage when draft Bills are actually circulated round the outside interests. This seems a sensible precaution for the Government to adopt, but the fact is that the House of Commons is not consulted at these early stages. There is no formal procedure for that to happen.
A wise Minister will consult his interested Back Benchers by discussions in the corridor. He might even consult his opposite numbers. But the reality is that the position now exists where the only people who are empowered by our constitution to enact legislation are the last people to be consulted. We are presented, in due course, with a Bill that has taken months or, in some cases, years to prepare. We have had no say in the


preparation of that Bill. Ministers, Civil servants and outside interests are consulted but not Parliament. This seems to explain why Standing Committees have become increasingly a ritual and less and less a process of effective scrutiny.
Hon. Members, particularly those who have had ministerial experience, know that Ministers can always use their last card which can be their trump card. If they have been out-argued on an amendment during discussion of a Bill in Committee and recognise that the arguments in favour of the amendment are overwhelming, they appeal to their hon. Friends sitting behind them by saying that the balance of the Bill has been so carefully drawn up and the Government have compromised here and there with interests outside that the whole balance of the Bill would be destroyed if the Government were to concede the powerful arguments that have been deployed. That is the last card that a Minister who has lost every argument can use. Often, he uses it to good effect. That is another reason why our procedures need bringing up to date.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that he was in favour of a pre-legislation process. So am I. I hope that if we pass the proposals for a Special Standing Committee today this will be a step in that direction. Equally, I recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure in its report doubted whether this pre-legislation procedure would be suitable at this stage for legislation other than legislation that is non-controversial and non-urgent. However, the Select Committee also went on to indicate two developments of great significance. First, the Committee recognised the growing practice of Governments to proceed through consultation by White or Green Papers. This development has grown naturally over recent years. The Committee also pointed to some striking examples of pre-legislation Select Committees that have had a substantial influence on the eventual legislation or on whether that legislation should be brought forward.
The Select Committee on Tax-Credits sat in the 1972–73 Session. There is no doubt that the proposals which eventually emerged from that Select Committee were a substantial improvement on the proposals originally made by the Gov-

ernment of the day. When considering the timetable of events perhaps it is significant that because the proposals were put to that Select Committee there was not time to legislate on them in that Parliament. However, that is by the way.
Another pre-legislation Select Committee of considerable importance was that on the proposed wealth tax. That Committee sat in the 1974–75 Session. Probably as a result of that Select Committee's deliberations the proposal was stillborn. Whether it was a wise decision, it was a classic example of a highly complex matter being the subject of consultation in the House of Commons before proceeding with legislation.
We are evolving methods of making Parliament more closely associated with the early stages of the legislative process. That is encouraging and essential if Parliament is to win the struggle to gain better control over the Government of the day. After all, legislation these days almost invariably leads to expenditure which might range five or 10 years ahead. Unless Parliament has some say in the formulation of that legislation it will have ineffective control over the expenditure which flows from it. It is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There is another reason why the proposals are significant. They can associate the Opposition of the day much more closely with the formulation of policy. 1 nurture the hope that if the Opposition have an opportunity to have their say before legislation is formulated they are less likely to want to show their virility by saying that they will repeal the legislation when they return to power. We have suffered from that phenomenon many times since the war. Classic examples are housing and pensions. Whatever one might feel about the policies of any particular Government, if policies are to be changed when long-term planning is involved, insecurity, indecision and difficulties will be caused for people outside Parliament. Thus, another advantage of a pre-legislation procedure is that by enabling the Opposition to have some say over the form of legislation we might prevent some of the see-sawing policies which in some areas have created insecurity and difficulty.
I should like us to go to pre-legislation committees straight away—to re-establish the First Reading in a modern guise. I recognise that in this conservative place it would be unwise to attempt to go too far or too fast. I welcome the Special Standing Committee as a step in the right direction. It is in accordance with our well-tried procedures in Parliament and the process of sending for persons, papers and records. Hearing oral evidence is something with which we are familiar as parliamentarians. There is nothing revolutionary about the proposed change. It is a natural evolutionary process. I hope that we shall agree to try it and see how we get on. It could be as important a step in the evolution of parliamentary practice as the new Select Committees.
I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the role of the Chairman of the Committees. It is of cardinal importance that the role of the Chairman should not impugn the well-known impartiality which the members of the Chairmen's Panel try to exercise in the conduct of proceedings.
To summarise, I believe that in the proposals for the Special Standing Committees and the other reforms, which I shall not mention in detail, we are not aiming to usurp the role of Government, because Governments must decide and put their proposals to Parliament. We must scrutinise, probe and make Governments prove their case. That is the essence of parliamentary government. Today, and this Session, might prove, not for the first time, that this Mother of Parliaments is old but yet young; that this ancient and honourable House is secure in the wisdom that has been built up over the centuries by tradition, custom and precedent. We are also showing that we are responsive to new needs, to new fears and to the aspirations of the people whom we represent. We have an opportunity today to fashion new ways of ensuring that Parliament and people remain in communion with each other.

Mr. Douglas Jay: My remarks and the amendments which I and some of my hon. Friends have tabled relate entirely to the control of

EEC legislation. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster uttered some worthy sentences about parliamentary control over legislation and some even finer words about the Queen in Parliament being absolutely sovereign. The object of our amendments, is to strengthen parliamentary control over EEC legislation as it goes through the House.
The immediate issue with which we are concerned is whether we can clearly establish by a declaratory motion that, when the Scrutiny Committee has recommended a legislative instrument from the Community for debate in the House, a Minister will not take a final legislative decision in the Council of Ministers before that instrument has been debated in the House.
If that assurance is not firm, the House has no control over EEC legislation. When the time comes to debate it, the Minister will say that, regrettably, the final decision was taken a fortnight previously in the Council of Ministers and that the regulation or directive is already law and binding in the Birtish courts. It is salutary that we should all remember that this is entirely an issue of EEC legislation—not of negotiation, discussion or consultation in the Council of Ministers—which becomes binding in the courts of Britain equally with legislation passed by the House.
Briefly, the history of the controversy is that as the European Communities Act 1972 passed through the House we received repeated assurances that a procedure would be established to enable the House to examine EEC legislation in a satisfactory manner. There followed the Foster committee, which recommended the setting up of the Scrutiny Committee, and, after the passing of the European Communities Act, that Committee was established. However, there was no guarantee that Ministers would not assent to EEC legislation before the debate took place in the House.
On 11 June 1974, in a general debate on procedure, I addressed a question to the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about whether he could give an undertaking that no Minister would give his approval to legislation before a debate had taken place in the House. He agreed that any other procedure


would be intolerable. Some of us took that to mean that in matters of legislation, and where a recommendation had been given by the Scrutiny Committee, no Minister would act in that way. It is a comment on the way that we sometimes conduct our affairs that it is now more than six years since that undertaking was given. and we still do not have it fully embodied in a motion.

Mr. English: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. Is he not aware that no person can give such an assurance, because it would be illegal under the Treaty of Rome? Under Community law legislation can be passed by the Council of Ministers, and no one Minister who might be outvoted can give an assurance that it will not become law unless he wishes that. That cannot be done.

Mr. Jay: I am not clear what point my hon. Friend is trying to make. Unless the Minister gives his assent to the legislation at the Council of Ministers, it will not become EEC legislation. That is the issue at stake. Following that debate and the original assurance, Governments began gradually to water down the assurance and to introduce a qualification that it would be carried out unless, in an emergency, a Minister chose to do otherwise. He would then attempt to inform Parliament thereafter.
In the opinion of myself and some of my hon. Friends, that is not satisfactory. Far from carrying out the undertaking to give further parliamentary control over the Executive, if we assented to place in the hands of a Minister the power to decide that he would not bring legislation before the House at all because he found himself in what he might describe as an emergency, that he was in a hurry and that it would be a great deal of trouble to do so, that would be the greatest surrender of legislative power that Parliament has ever made.
The purpose of our amendments is to ensure that the House does not hand over an unqualified power to Ministers to act on a dispensation from the undertaking given. There are four amendments. Amendment (a) would remove the qualification in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House and would mean that there was a clear undertaking that no assent would be given until a debate had taken place in the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that no agreement should be given. The motion proposes that no Minister should give agreement. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if the motion is passed or amended in any way, it will be binding on the Leader of the House and the Government?

Mr. Jay: That is an interesting point. Perhaps the Leader of the House will make that point clear when he replies. I hope that we can take it that the words "should not be given" mean that no Minister would disregard the undertaking. Leaving that point aside, that would be the effect of amendment (a).
Amendment (b) relates to an important though less crucial point. It ensures that the matter, when it came before the House, would be on a substantive motion and not on the Adjournment and therefore would be capable of amendment. In effect, it ensures that it would be open to the House to say to the Minister "Go back to Brussels, amend the legislation in this fashion, and then it will have the approval of the House."
Amendment (c) would leave the Scrutiny Committee with authority to make its recommendations to the House but it would remove altogether the power of the Minister to give his assent in Brussels before the debate took place.
Amendment (d), which is an indispensable amendment to which no one could have any objection, would ensure that if the previous amendments were not accepted, and if the Minister were still allowed some discretion, he would be bound to make an oral statement in the House explaining what he had done and his reasons for it. That amendment is not sufficient; it is the minimum that is required. I regret to say that, as the Leader of the House probably knows, in recent months in several cases a Minister has carried out that undertaking only in an answer to a written question after the event which was probably not noticed by a great number of hon. Members.
I recommend the amendments to the House. They are intended simply to give us some control over EEC legislation. When we are saying that Standing Committees are not good enough and that we must have a pre-legislative Committee in


addition to Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, it would be ironic if, in the case of EEC legislation—which is equally binding in the courts—we should have not only no Second Reading, no Report stage, no Third Reading and no Royal Assent but no discussion in the House at all. I hope that the House will agree that these amendments are the minimum that is required to deal with EEC legislation.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Not infrequently in previous debates on procedure steps have been advocated to ensure that hon. Members keep their speeches short, and I certainly intend to do that. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will forgive me if I do not pursue his points about the Common Market and so on.
I should like to speak exclusively on the motion entitled "Procedure (Supply)" which states
That a Select Committee should be appointed at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament to examine the House's present procedure for considering and voting on the Government's requests for Supply, and to make recommendations.
I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I warmly welcome that motion. Perhaps I might also express by thanks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who heard the opening remarks of the Leader of the House but is unable to be here now, for the kind remarks by the Leader of the House about the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which has got away to a good start.
If there is one thing that is less modest and more unpopular in this House than quoting one's speeches, it is quoting from one's articles. None the less, I am emboldened to refer to one which I wrote in the National Westminster Review in August 1978—if I am allowed to make a commercial. I found, to my surprise, that even in "Erskine May" there is no real account of our financial procedures. There is certainly no clear description of when particular matters may be debated or voted upon, or of the parliamentary timetable.
I therefore thought it right, with the assistance of the Clerks, who have no responsibility for what I wrote but were kind enough to check it, to spell out what the procedures are. I think that that is helpful. In the article I explained, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has, that while we are told that the whole historic foundation of the power of the House rests on the control of Supply, developments over the years have created a situation where Supply is almost the last thing we debate in any detail. There are 29 Supply days, but they have fallen into the hands of the Opposition Front Bench. Although it is technically possible on occasion on a Supply day for a Back Bencher to debate a particular item of Supply, it is a fairly brave Member who will do so at the beginning of an important debate on a broad and important subject. As a result of that, it has become virtually impossible to secure any detailed debate on these matters.
Very often our historic precedents lead us to create a good framework within which to operate. However, the question of Supply has, over the years, run into a blind alley, and therefore I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's suggestion that a Committee should examine it to see how we get it back on the rails.
A recent innovation has been the integration of cash limits with Estimates. However, in that context we still do not have an opportunity to debate cash limits in any detail. Given the complexity of modern government, there is an overwhelming case for the Estimates that are put before the House, however carefully Treasury Ministers may have sought to scrutinise them, to be surveyed also by the Committees of this House and, if necessary, debated and voted upon in detail on the Floor of the House. That simply is not possible at present. There may well be specific items which hon. Members, perhaps across party lines, feel they should have an opportunity to debate and vote upon.
It is sometimes said that we should consider in that context what happens with the public expenditure White Paper. We thought that there would be great debates upon it, but in some years the debates have turned out to be unbelievably dull. To a large extent they are frequently badly attended because hon.


Members know that they cannot vote on this or that item or on the totality of the expenditure which is proposed at various stages in our procedure. I am sure that these debates would attract better attendances if that were not so, although obviously it would be helpful if the Committees responsible for particular Departments had scrutinised Estimates or cash limits and made recommendations on them in advance.
Other points need to be considered by the Committee that I hope will be set up. Expenditure approved in one year cannot be transferred into a subsequent year, but in this respect there has been a dangerous development lately to which the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has drawn attention. It is that the Government may, in the course of pay negotiations, make firm commitments for a subsequent year which are not covered by the cash limits for the current year. As a result of that, the procedure is effectively being circumvented. As a Parliament we do not have true control over that. We therefore need to be able to bring the annual system of Estimates and cash limits back under parliamentary control.
That means that we need to look at the Estimates and cash limits in detail. They do not have the force of law. They are eventually embodied in legislation, generally in the form of the Consolidated Fund Bill. We have reached a very odd situation with that Bill. On the Second Reading hon. Members can debate anything, but they cannot vote on any of it. In the later stages they can vote on the whole lot, but they cannot debate it. That surely cannot be sensible.
In all these respects, therefore, there are real opportunities here for discussing these matters and putting them right. It is not satisfactory when hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) have to exercise great ingenuity in order to get a debate on matters involving expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds which would otherwise be approved on the nod. That is the wrong way to set about it because it invariably causes a great deal of controversy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) pressed a number of Divisions a few months ago to register our protest about what has become a severe

restraint on parlimentary control of the Executive.
I hope very much that it will be possible for the Committee to report rapidly, because these matters are well known to many hon. Members. I hope that we shall he able to carry out a reform in time for the next Consolidated Fund Bill, although that depends on how one works it. However, whether any of these proposals mean anything depends on whether the Government of the day are prepared to give time for these matters to be debated. Clearly, it would be unsatisfactory for the Opposition of whichever party if the number of Supply Days were severely curtailed. It may be necessary to make some adjustments at the margin. None the less, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board the fact that these reforms are meaningful only if the Government are prepared to give up time to ensure that Parliament reasserts its traditional role in these areas, which are of vital importance.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already introduced some extremely important reforms. I believe that if he carries through this one as well, dealing with that which is at the heart of our parliamentary affairs—namely, finance—he could well turn out to be the most effective reforming Leader of the House we have seen, certainly this century.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There was a retrospective section in the speech of the Leader of the House in which he referred to the working so far of what are called the new Select Committees. I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) in uttering a word of anxiety, although I personally, on the Select Committee on Procedure and in the House, wholeheartedly supported the principle of the establishment of these Committees, regarding them as a logical and necessary extension of the development of the Estimates and Expenditure Committees of the past.
My anxiety arises not out of the Standing Order which created the Committees but out of a quite separate decision of the House, namely, that the public might be admitted—which means in practice that


they almost invariably are admitted—to the sittings of the Select Committees. The admission of the public has carried with it the convention that the Committees are deemed to have reported their evidence day by day.
The effect of that has been to turn some of the work of these Select Committees into instantaneous comment and debate on, if not investigation into, the matters of the day, which often anticipates and in some way replaces the function of the House in calling Ministers rapidly to account where speed is necessary. It has also altered the peculiar character that was always associated with Select Committees—that of asking a question or a series of questions and pursuing them by the interrogation of witnesses until satisfied that a point of clarification had been reached which justified them in sending their report to this House.
In modern cinemas, apart from the main show, there can be subsidiary cinemas in which subsidiary films run at the same time. Something similar seems to have resulted from the creation of the new Select Committees; but we should be jealous of our Select Committees losing their peculiar character, not merely of impartiality, but of exclusive attention to extracting information beyond what the House is capable of doing.
I turn to the motion that is technically before the House. With respect, it is not quite correct that we are completing our work and have dealt with all the recommendations of the Select Committee. I have drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House one such recommendation, recommendation (10), to which it was specifically promised on an earlier occasion that attention would be given. That has not happened. In that recommendation the Select Committee recommended that the proposals of the Committee on the preparation of Legislation—the Renton committee—for an ex-expedited procedure for Bills to re-enact for Scotland the provisions of United Kingdom Acts should be implemented and that a similar procedure should be applied in respect of Northern Ireland.
I shall not trouble the House by rehearsing the argument in paragraph 2.40 of the Committee's report; but undoub-

tedly this is a recommendation that would save the time of the House without in any way opening the door to unscrutinised legislation going on the statute book. It would simply enable the consolidation conventions and procedures to be applied to Bills duly certified as applying, subject to the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland, legislation that had passed through Parliament in the normal manner already. The House has indicated—I think with justice—that it is impatient of the additional burden placed upon its time by the necessity of re-enacting for parts of the Kingdom other than England the same legislation, simply with application clauses or with account taken of local legal differences. I hope that when the Leader of the House replies he will not merely refer to this but will indicate sympathy with something that would substantially alleviate the burden on the time of the House.
I make this observation in no way with prejudice to any questions regarding the future constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. I simply say that as long as this House legislates for Northern Ireland and Scotland we should do so with expedition in the manner recommended by the Select Committee.
I turn now to some of the proposals on the Order Paper. I was disappointed that the Leader of the House, although he welcomed the amendment relating to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, did not adopt it or offer to consider it on behalf of the Government or propose an alternative. It is a standing scandal which has existed for some 30 years that Parliament passes legislation providing for Parliament to control subordinate legislation, and then by its own procedures the House prevents itself from doing so. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that there is a question here whether such procedures might not be used merely for the purpose of obstruction of Government business—though in some circumstances there is something to be said for the obstruction of Government business. The beginning of the 30 years' scandal was in the 1950 Parliament, where there was a very narrow majority, when the use of what we colloquially call prayers was deliberately resorted to in order to harass and tire the Government of the day—a process not normally to


be achieved. As a result of that experience, by a series of changes in procedure, the House denied itself the opportunity which should be open to it of exercising control over subordinate legislation, particularly negative control by way of prayer.

Sir Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman probably recollects that when the 11.30 pm rule was introduced the Leader of the House gave an undertaking that time would always be found for prayers.

Mr. Powell: Yes. I also remember that Lord Boyle of Handsworth and I were reluctant, even at that stage, to agree to this retrenchment of what should, by reason of our statutory declarations, be a process automatically available.
The stage we have reached at the moment is that some of these motions for annulment are sent to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, but the procedure in those Committees is a farce. The Standing Order prevents the Committees from doing what the House would do if it was dealing with a statutory instrument on the Floor: it would come to a decision on the prayer—for or against. There is something odious about a Standing Order which forbids any manifestation of this House to reach a decision.
The reason for it is not that prayers might otherwise become a means of obstructing Government business. A Standing Order that prevents a decision "Yes" or "No" or the consideration of an amendment, does not increase the number of sittings; it does not afford an opportunity for harassing the Government. On the other hand, it does require the Government to ensure that, if necessary, they have a Government majority on that Committee.
That is a different matter. The House may consider that it would be improper to institute a procedure which self-evidently could be used for the frustration of business. It is a different matter to refuse to remedy a deficiency to spare the Government having to secure a majority on a Committee in the morning. That is only a Whips' reason, if I may so put it—I have the assent of the Leader of the House who is not a Whip, nor likely to be nor, I think, has been. We both escaped that. Consequently, I read into

his assent more than the usual warmth: he recognises that the Whips' argument has limited validity, if any.
The proposals on the Order Paper, which derives from the deliberation of the Committee, are a careful attempt to meet the problem of enabling, within limits of time, a Statutory Instruments Committee to do its work properly by coming to a conclusion for or against the proposition that the instrument should be annulled, and to have a debate which should conclude, as is proper for debates, with a decision.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman—and certainly the House—has not heard the last of this; for it is not tolerable that year after year we deny to the public the means of controlling through us the exercise of delegated legislation by Ministers. To that extent I am disappointed with what we have before us.
I now come to the special Standing Committees. Here I believe that we are using the device of an experiment to save ourselves the trouble of deciding whether or not a proposal is inherently practical. It is a method to which we sometimes resort when faced with something which, if throughly examined, would be found to be contradictory, to say "Let us have an experiment, let us try it". That method has been adopted in more serious contexts than that of the constitution and procedure of Standing Committees of this House.—[Interruption.] I have in mind the Northern Ireland constitution.
There is an inherent contradiction and difficulty about this proposition. A Standing Committee on a Bill is this House in miniature; and a Standing Committee on a Bill ought to be able to behave, and be allowed to behave, as this House would behave when considering a Bill in Committee. That is how these Standing Committees came into existence, in order that, like an excursion train, the House could run in duplicate, in triplicate, and sometimes higher multiples.
I do not agree with those who say that the line-by-line method of consideration is ineffective. It is one of the most effective methods of examining legislation to force a Minister to debate a specific amendment on a specific line. I do not think that is diminished by the fact that in Standing Committee, for


reasons which are well understood, one half of the Committee tends to be mute and the other to be vocal. The mute part of the Committee is not necessarily ineffective because it is mute. For one thing, it hears the arguments. [Interruption.] I am being generous. I am not one of those hon. Members who have a clean record of no-service on Standing Committees over the last 30 years, and I know that Members on the Government side who take an interest in the Bill do listen to the arguments which are being put against its provisions, and if there is a Division they do have to decide whether or not to intimate—indeed, to intimate earlier, if possible—to the Whip that they do not think the Minister is on a good case. Everyone knows that is what happens in practice. So it simply is not true that the Standing Committee procedure is ineffective for the scrutiny of a Bill.
That scrutiny, like the scrutiny on the Floor of the House, is what is called adversarial; and where the provisions of the Bill are politically charged, there will be political debate in the Committee and decisions will be taken on political and on party lines. Let the House not suppose that by having three sittings, or how many it might be, of the Committee as if it were a Select Committee, that will transform the consideration of the Bill into that kind of consideration which a Select Committee ought to undertake with the assistance of witnesses. It will remain controversial, and the interrogation of witnesses—which will take place in public, because the proceedings of Standing Committes, being proceedings of the House, ought to be in public—the selection of witnesses and the jockeying for position in putting questions to witnesses, will be purely political and politically motivated. It will not bear other than the resemblance of a caricature to what happens in the working of a true Select Committee, nor will that be altered by giving it a different Chairman, so that he can do what the Chairman of a Select Committee does, which is, in effect, to conduct the interrogation of the witnesses.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was listening very carefully and I had some difficulty in understanding why the right hon. Gentleman contends that the presentation of

oral evidence before the Special Standing Committee will not enable the members of that Standing Committee to form a better view of the merits of the Minister's case.

Mr. Powell: A Committee on a Bill where the matters are in controversy will be endeavouring to prove its case on one side or the other and to elicit only those facts which it considers to be germane to its own case. That is an entirely different approach to the examination of witnesses from that which we expect from a Select Committee.
I will take a point which was made by the Leader of the House. He said that he expected that the Minister in charge of a Bill would not merely be a Member of the Committee but that he would step down, go round to the other side of the reporters and turn into a witness. The notion that a Committee on a Bill, with the Minister in the seat in front of it, will get any more change than it will out of the adversarial procedure is, in my view, a delusion. I think it will make a mockery of Select Committee procedure and of the examination of witnesses by Select Committees.
I am not sure that the Leader of the House is not half aware of this, because he is to choose for this experiment three Bills "not of acute political controversy". Yet it is where the political controversy is acute that people have expressed, inside and outside this House, the desire that there might be some opportunity of bringing outside evidence to bear upon the shaping of a Bill. I simply think that in this we are on a loser, that it has not been thought through or debated sufficiently, and that it is a mistake, that being so, to experiment with it.
With that experiment we are combining, quite illogically—or proposing to do so, under motion No. 3—a very different experiment, of an entirely different character, and one applicable, if applicable at all, to all Bills which go through Standing Committee. It is an experiment which I think we could dispense with and go straight to a Standing Order; for all hon. Members, I should have thought, regret the loss of time in the Report stage which is taken up by the Minister bobbing up and moving an amendment and


hon. Members bobbing up and rehearsing what they said in Committee, and thanking the Minister for having done what they knew perfectly well from Committee that he was going to do. This is a tedious waste of time on the floor of the House.
If it can be dealt with by straight undertakings, which are not open to further debate, being implemented before the Bill reaches the House, the House will then be in a better position to consider the Bill on Report. For hon. Members who have not been on the Standing Committee often find themselves faced with an Order Paper as long as your arm, where only careful detailed work on the proceedings of the Committee will enable them to sort out which amendments are the fulfilment of commitments and which represent genuinely new or unsettled points that ought to be properly debated on Report.
I hope we shall find some way of dividing this Standing Order into two Standing Orders, one of an experimental character and another not, dealing, as they do, with entirely separate matters.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already addressed the House on the subject of European Community Legislation. We are here trying to do by Standing Order that which it is impossible to do by Standing Order. We are attempting to pretend there is no conflict between control over the law by this House and this country's membership of the EEC. There is an inherent contradiction: if there were not, we would not have had to pass the European Communities Act 1972 in the form in which it stands.
The Divisions that we shall no doubt have on amendments (b), (c) and (d) are no more than manifestations of the incompatibility. It is contrary to the very nature of the Council of Ministers for this House to be able to say "Yea" or "Nay" to the final form of everything that passes through the EEC and becomes the law in this country. We are simply attempting to put off a decision that will be taken sooner or later. Our parliamentary self-government and independence are incompatible with membership of the EEC.
I agree with other hon. Members that it is desirable to have a Procedure Committee on Supply and that it is desirable to examine that subject from top to bottom. I am not sure whether the Committee's work will be easy. It will have to combine a notion of scrutiny of one kind with protection of those opportunities for debate and criticism of government, afforded by Supply procedure, which have developed over the centuries. Nevertheless, one wishes the Committee well in its attempt to do so. Even if it does not find the solution to that dilemma, it will dig up some interesting and, perhaps, important recommendations. I ask the Leader of the House, however, not to allow the setting up of a Select Committee on Supply procedure to stand in the way of our having a Sessional Committee on procedure once again. We should have a Sessional Committee on procedure in the next Session. Subjects already exist that should be considered by such a Committee, and no Committee with a large remit such as we are assuming for a Committee on Supply procedure could address itself to those subjects. The Leader of the House would do well if, at the beginning of the next Session, he were to propose the establishment of a Sessional Committee as well as a Committee to examine the procedure of Supply.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: There are few hon. Members who have such a deep knowledge of and reverence for the procedures of the House as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Those of us who served on the Procedure Committee for nearly three years during the last Parliament found his advice and contribution immensely enriching to our discussions. His foot seemed to stray closer to the brake than to the accelerator, but that is no bad thing when discussing the procedures of the House. We should not be to quick or too anxious to change our procedures all the time. In the absence of a written constitution, our procedures preserve not only the liberties of this House but those of individual citizens. Our procedures buttress and support them in subtle and complex ways, which may not be fully understood until they are tested in this Chamber or in Committee.
It is the nature of institutions to change, just as it is the nature of human beings to change. The skill of changing our institutions lies in the continuum of interest from the past to the present and into the future. In that continuum of interest, that which is being changed must not lose its identity. That is the spirit that should dominate our attitude to procedural matters.
I tried to persuade the Procedure Committee to adopt one recommendation, namely, that when a Select Committee on procedure reports, the report should be tabled as a complete report, in the form of recommendations. I do not suggest that for all Select Committees; but a Select Committee on procedure, which examines procedures carefully, should table all its recommendations. If the Government did not want to approve the report, they could table amendments or a negative motion. If we had adopted that procedure we would have debated several subjects, including the proposals made about Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. Our recommendations are not tabled in the way that I have suggested, and that means that we can debate them only on an amendment, as we have done today.
I share the view held by the right hon. Member for Down, South about our proposals for Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. I voted for those proposals two years ago and I shall vote for them again tonight. They are sensible and right. We are allowing the scrutiny and control of delegated legislation to slip out of our control. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), because he understands the very complex subject of statutory instruments. I can remember the details of our proposals for only about an hour after I have read them, but I know that they remain fertile in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I strongly support the recommendations as regards amendment (a).
Among the other things that we have not been allowed to debate are some interesting and engaging recommendations at the end of our report. We suggested that we should try to curtail the long sittings of the House. It is a contro-

versial subject and the vote was not unanimous. Different views were held.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not accurate to say that the House has been prevented from discussing such matters. The fact that the Government have not tabled a motion on a particular subject does not mean that any hon. Member is prevented from tabling one. A number of other amendments could have been tabled along the lines of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and anything could have been discussed. However, other motions were not tabled.

Mr. Baker: I accept that that is the position, but if all the motions had been tabled by the Select Committee there would have been an onus on the Government to marshal arguments and votes against them. That would have placed the burden of proof on the other foot.
Among the subjects that have not been included are the proposals relating to the 10 o'clock rule. We have a rule that the House should stop at 10 o'clock every night. As hon. Members know, that rule is suspended nearly every night. The Select Committee thought of a way of making the rule stick to some extent. It was proposed that the Question should not be decided in the affirmative unless no fewer than 200 hon. Members vote in the majority in support of the motion. That proposal did not receive the unanimous support of the Committee. There was another suggestion that there should be a 12 o'clock rule after the 10 o'clock rule, and that the numbers should be increased to 400. The House sits late at night and many hon. Members are puzzled and resentful. I appreciate that there is a strong case for holding debates after that hour, and interesting debates often take place at such times. However, the subject could be debated.
We also suggested that there should be more information about the dates of the Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun Recesses. We made a helpful, if minor, suggestion to the effect that the Easter Recess should be longer than the Whitsun Recess, because school holidays are longer at Easter. However, I shall not press those points as they are relatively trivial.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South on the subject


of specialist Committees. It is an experiment that is worth trying.
Several arguments led me to support the concept of a Standing Committee taking evidence for up to four sittings. First, many outside interests feel that they are excluded from this process of legislation. They make representations to Departments and Ministers and go to see them. Some of them are seen; others are not. However, other outside interests also feel that they would like to get their voice in edgeways in some public way so that they can present their evidence. On certain complicated financial and insurance legislation, for example, I can think of several Bills during the last 10 years which would have been improved if that opportunity had existed.
I am not in favour of a pre-legislative stage—adding another process to our legislation. However, this seemed to be some way of meeting the arguments of those who are in favour of a pre-legislative stage.
Secondly, it is valuable to have those sittings before, as it were, the cement sets and is fixed and firm about a Bill. Often when a Bill goes into Committee, Ministers are briefed to "Resist these amendments on all counts, as we want to get the legislation through." But sometimes they are moved away from the brief during the debate line by line. I do not say that the examination line by line is a solemn farce. We have seen balances of view change in Committee. I could point to examples where there have been changes by Ministers as a result of debates—changes not related to the voting strength in Committee or on Report. Therefore, I should not like to have all Bills go through a Select Committee procedure. Some Members want that. I think the value of debate on a Bill is one of the special qualities of the House. I have not been impressed by what I have seen of the examination of Bills in other legislatures—principally the old Commonwealth legislatures—which have gone almost to a Select Committee examination of Bills. On the other hand, I am glad that the Government have said that they will try to select three Bills of a more technical and not particularly controversial nature for this experiment.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that he thought

this would clog the legislative process. It would add probably up to four sittings for a Bill. But I should have thought that, on balance, the advantages that I have tried to set out would outweigh the disadvantages. If all legislation were treated in that way, it would slow down the process. Of course, there are those who would say that was a good thing. Some of the original members of the Select Committee four years ago, before they left for other jobs, avowedly said that their whole purpose was to try to clog up the machine. I have never said that. That is not my purpose. It would be an absurd purpose, because at the end of the day the Government have to get their legislative programme, but not before proper scrutiny and examination by the House.

Sir Graham Page: My hon. Friend talked about proper scrutiny. If the examination of witnesses were along the same lines as the procedure in a Standing Committee—that is, one side keeping mute and the other side talking—would that discover the facts from witnesses?

Mr. Baker: The proof of the pudding to some extent would be in the eating. I should have thought that in an examination of witnesses we would not get what we get in the early stages of debates in Standing Committee—namely, very long, virtually Second Reading speeches. I should hope that under this procedure hon. Members would ask a series of questions in rotation and work out amongst themselves a balance of questioning. That happens in the new Select Committees upstairs. When a Committee has a prime witness before it—for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Employment, or the Governor of the Bank of England—there is a little jockeying, as it were, as to who should run off the first four or five questions. In my experience on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, hon. Members in discussion come to a reasonable solution. After all, we are reasonable people.
I come now to the proposal dealing with the new Select Committee on Supply. I agree entirely with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the campaign which has been conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford


(Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—at one stage almost single-handed—to bring about change in this matter. It is evident to all of us that the capacity of the House to control Supply has slipped away. It can be changed in many ways, and I am sure that the new Select Committee will examine the matter. The question of the capacity of either Select Committees or the House to vote in detail upon Supply will arise. I rather favour that. A vote in the House commands not only one's footsteps to come here but one's mind to think about what one is voting upon.
We have had absurd examples during this Session. On the Consolidated Fund Bill we can debate anything for as long as we wish—at least until 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning—with no votes being taken. The votes are taken virtually on the nod. Of course, matters can be voted upon in certain instances, but without debate. That seems inappropriate. The House must change its method of control over Supply.
I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Down, South about a Sessional Committee on procedure. Certain matters constantly recur in the House. For example, again and again hon. Members ask: how can we stop the solemn farce of 20 questions being placed on the Order Paper asking the Prime Minister to state her engagements for the day? Ideally, this could be looked at by a Sessional Committee. As regards Prime Minister's Question Time, one simple change which should be considered is that if 20 questions appear on the day after they should appear all asking my right hon. Friend about her engagements for the day, on the second day all but one should be taken off the Order Paper. That would leave one general question, because the House wants to get at the general issue at least once. That would have the effect of increasing the ingenuity of hon. Members in trying to formulate more interesting and varied questions. That would also have the effect of the Prime Minister of the day welcoming the acceptance of a broader range of questions.
A Sessional Committee could look at certain other matters, too. The whole matter of Private Bill legislation should be looked at again. This takes up a con-

siderable time of the House. Allowing the House to have virtually unrestricted debate on Second and Third Reading of Private Bills can become a considerable method of obstruction, if it is used as some Members have been able to use it. Perhaps the use of Private Members' Time should also be looked at.
When the Committee is set up in the new Session, rather than having a separate Sessional Procedure Committee, perhaps the Sessional Committee could be given powers to consider other matters referred to it by the House. There should be some mechanism whereby that can be done.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having brought forward and promoted the procedural changes of the last Select Committee on Procedure. Laudatory adjectives have showered upon him—I do not intend to add any more—to such an extent that they have driven him from the Chamber. However, I believe that he has the interests of the House at heart by being interested in procedural change and in bringing about the possibility of such change.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I thought that someone had warned the Leader of the House that he was about to receive a compliment from the Liberal Bench and, therefore that he had better make himself scarce lest it should be reported in any dangerous quarter. I follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) in saying that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Leader of the House, particularly those of us who have toiled for many years on the Procedure Committee, for the care that he has devoted to securing time for the debate of our recommendations and, indeed, giving his personal support to so many of those recommendations. We should be grateful to him for that.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone seemed eager to add to the tasks of the new Procedure Committee which is recommended in one of the motions. I hope that he is offering himself for service on it. He is certainly giving it a great deal to do if he expects it to combine the Sessional Committee's functions with the major tasks of reviewing procedures on Supply and expenditure which are to be remitted to it. I hope that he makes that


offer, because he served with distinction on the previous Committee.
I follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone and some other hon. Members in wholeheartedly endorsing the proposals about Public Bill procedure, which are one of the features which today's motions seek to bring into effect experimentally. My answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is "Let us see." It is the same answer as I would give to other hon. Members who have intervened is such a way as to suggest that this procedure will collapse or become a farce—let us see.
I genuinely believe that, given the opportunity to question witnesses at a number of sittings, the members of a Standing Committee will be able to make profitable use of them. I do not believe that we should select entirely uncontroversial Bills for this purpose. I think that if we are to take about three Bills, we could have a range of Bills—perhaps one of a highly technical character and one of a much more controversial character, and I add my voice to that of the shadow Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in saying that I hope that the nationality Bill gets something of this kind of treatment, because it is a Bill on which we need to hear the views of people who are qualified to advise us from outside the House.
I do not believe that this replaces in any way the line-by-line scrutiny of Bills. I do not think that any of the advocates of the Public Bill procedure think that that aspect is unnecessary. We all know its faults and the ways in which it can be misused, but it remains a fundamental cornerstone of our procedures that no Bill can get through the House without being scrutinised line by line. That is why we all get very agitated when guillotine motions are before us. It is also why some of us are very critical of the delegated legislation procedure—a matter to which I shall return shortly—because one of the things that that does not do is to afford line-by-line scrutiny of what eventually becomes the law of the land. Nor is the new Public Bill procedure the same as having pre-legislation Committees. It serves quite a different function, because one is sure in the case of this new procedure that the same Members as hear the witnesses are those who go

on and do the line-by-line scrutiny. It is not one group of people set aside in a previous Session, perhaps, giving their views as to whether there should be legislation in this field and what it should contain, who are then replaced by perhaps a largely different group who go on to study the Bill in detail. This attempt to marry two different activities, although it may have problems, is worth trying. Let us see how well it works.
It is right that we should be seeking to make improvements in the consideration of European business. I am glad that these recommendations of the Procedure Committee are before the House. I strongly support the setting up of a new Procedure Committee, the focus of whose activity will be procedure of Supply and finance. That is long overdue.
The Procedure Committee in the last Session felt that, with the tasks that it had undertaken, it was quite unable to undertake the major and quite separate duty of devising better procedures for Supply. We very much need to do that. The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Affairs Committee underlined that need. There is now no one, I think, who dissents from the proposition that we must improve our scrutiny of Supply.
But that leaves us with the major area on which I want to concentrate. It was referred to at some length by the right hon. Member for Down, South, with whom I wholly agree on this matter. It is the procedure on statutory instruments. In my service in the House, which is relatively short, and certainly in the time of the right hon. Gentleman's service here, the area covered by statutory instruments, the extent and the number of them have extended enormously and there is now almost nothing which cannot pass into the law of the land by way of statutory instrument, including taxation. One thinks of value added tax, or of what is in practice, though not in theory, taxation—the national insurance fund, major decisions on the levels of contributions for which are implemented through the statutory instruments procedure.
Increasingly there is a tendency for Ministers to seek statutory instrument powers, delegated legislation powers, for whole sections of Bills. Very often Members serving on a Committee on a Bill are unwilling to challenge Ministers'


desires to do this because it arises from attempts to make concessions. During proceedings on a Bill, Ministers often say "I am willing to go some way to meet the point that the hon. Member makes, but I do not feel that it would be possible to do it in the Bill now. However, if I am given the power to make regulations on this aspect, I shall do so in the spirit of the amendments moved by the hon. Member." So, quick as a flash, written into law is yet another area in which delegated legislation procedure is all that will govern a whole area of activity. It is done in that case for quite genuine reasons, but it seriously undermines the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that legislation.
That situation has worsened steadily over a period of years. Even the affirmative procedure for delegated legislation has its deficiencies in the fact that all the debates we have are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, in which the House cannot express an opinion on any aspect of what is before it but can only decide whether it accepts or rejects the instrument. One of the minor reasons for which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled an amendment, with my support, is simply to ensure that the decisions on affirmative resolutions eventually taken by this House are taken at a proper time, at the commencement of public business; and that was, as I understand it, always the intention but has never been given effect to in the Standing Orders.
The affirmative procedure seems almost watertight when compared with the negative procedure, which is bad enough in theory and even worse in practice. Under the negative procedure an instrument comes into force unless it is annulled by either House of Parliament and the Prayer procedures upon which we depend in order to try to challenge these instruments have a time limit set to them and no guarantee is available to Members that they can secure either a debate or a vote on the Prayer that they have tabled. In many instances the Government can simply defer the debate until the time limit has expired, or refer the debate to a Committee, which has the consequence, as the right hon. Member for Down, South illustrated, that no vote of any significance can take place on the Prayer.
It is worth reminding the House that until 1954 all Prayers could be debated on the Floor of the House. There was no restriction on the ability of the House to debate Prayers. Any Member could put a Prayer down for debate on any sitting day except a Friday, and unless a closure was carried, there was no time limit on the duration of these debates on Prayers. Then, in 1954, the 11.30 pm rule came in. That ensured that there were only the four periods a week between 10 pm and 11.30 pm in which Prayers could be discussed. Of course, many of these periods are eaten into by Divisions lasting until 10.15 pm or 10.30 pm, thus reducing time for the debate to only an hour or so.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) who said that when that recommendation was made it was still assumed that all Prayers would be debated on the Floor of the House and time would be found for them. The then Leader of the House, Captain Crookshank, said that if hon. Gentlemen tabled Prayers, time would be found for Prayers. We can see how very far we have moved from that position.
In 1973 the Procedure Committee was set up to provide a place to which to send Prayers that had not been debated. That is not objectionable in principle. I do not dissent from the view that many statutory instruments can properly be discussed in a Committee—if that Committee can reach a conclusion on them or, at the very least, if we are certain that the House can reach a conclusion on them following the debate in the Committee. At present neither of these things is available. It is not merely that the Committee has no effusion, as the right hon. Member for Down, South puts it; there is no effusion at all, because the matter need never come back to the Floor of the House in any way other than that of the formal report "That the Committee has considered the instrument"; and that formal report still comes to the House even if the Committee has voted that it has not considered the instrument.
We had a classic example only a few months ago. Hon. Members spent some time in Committee discussing whether one should be prohibited from having a sidecar on the right-hand side of a motor cycle. The Committee came to the conclusion that the instrument should not be


approved, and voted that it had not considered it. However, the formality is that a report must be made to the House that the Committee has considered the matter, which means that the Committee's decision is of no effect. That is a farcical procedure. It is repugnant to the notion that the purpose of the House is to make the laws of the land and to scrutinise their making. Surely there can be no remaining defence for such procedures.
The right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that the Government were unwilling to make reforms because, if they did so, they would have to secure a majority on the Committees to protect themselves from defeats in the morning on statutory instruments. That has already happened. Even under the present system, the Government find it embarrassing if a Committee votes that it has not considered the instrument, even though no consequences flow from that happening.
On a recent occasion we waited for a Committee to begin its consideration of a statutory instrument while Government whips buzzed around keeping Conservative Members out of the Committee because of the fear that a vote might take place on the consideration motion. It was not until a certain hon. Member had given an assurance that he would not seek a vote on the motion that a quorum was found to enable the Committee to begin. All the problems concerned with the Government having to ensure that they have a majority are with us now. They do not represent an argument against ensuring that the Committees may reach a decision. It is right that the Procedure Committee should have made such recommendations and that they should now be before us, thanks to the initiative of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). His amendment, to which my name is added, sets out quite precisely the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee.
I still do not consider—I did not consider at the time—that the recommendations are adequate to ensure full control of delegated legislation for the House. However, they represent an improvement on what we have now. I appeal to hon. Members to support the amendment. It cannot be represented as a devastating weakening of the Government's control

over delegated legislation or an imperilling of their legislative programme.
The opportunity on affirmative instruments that the recommendations would provide is merely for a meaningful vote to take place and for the Committee to give an opinion on the changes that might be desirable. Under the negative procedure, the hurdles that the Committee left in the way of hon. Members wanting to secure that the measures returned to the House are quite considerable. A negative instrument, under the procedures recommended, would be considered on a motion that the Government recommend the annulment, withdrawal or approval of the motion. That means that the vote, at least, would be on a matter of substance. The Committee did not extend to negative procedure the suggestion that the motion should be open to amendment. It will still be a take-it-or-leave-it debate on negative instruments.
If a Committee tries to throw out a statutory instrument and recommends annulment, and the Government do not find time for a debate on the matter in the House within seven days, it is recommended that Members should have the right to insist on a one-hour debate. Incidentally, that would secure a vote on the issue. That is the most significant improvement that the Committee has suggested. It is a desirable improvement and I do not see how it can reasonably be opposed. The only flaw is that it could lead to the Government refusing to send Prayers against instruments to Committee in the first place. At present they have little incentive to do so, even though they sometimes adopt that procedure. They might be given an incentive by this procedure.
There are further steps that hon. Members could take within the proposals it the Government refused to send an instrument to Committee. However, in doing so they would have to have the support of half of the House, which is a pretty large number. If the opposition parties and a substantial minority of the Government grouped together in their opposition to a statutory instrument, I rather suspect that the Government would be forced to take action even if their action did not appear formally on the Order Paper. That is an illustration of how


careful the Committee was in its recommendations not to overstep the Government's claim that their legislative timetable and demands must be respected. These are modest recommendations.
The Leader of the House said that he welcomed the amendment. I do not know whether he intended to use the word "welcomed". However, I hope that it means that the Government will give their support to the implementation of this feature of the Procedure Committee's recommendations.

Mr. David Crouch: I am not following the hon. Gentleman when he talks about the commencement of public business and a one-hour debate. Does his amendment suggest that the prayer against a statutory instrument would take place at the commencement of public business in the Chamber, or does it mean that that procedure would take place in Committee?

Mr. Beith: I said much earlier that the vote on an affirmative instrument—that is merely a vote and not the debate—should take place at the commencement of public business. As for the rare cases where a Committee seeks to carry a Prayer and thereby throw out a statutory instrument, the Committee should be able to secure, if the Government do not make their own provision for a one-hour debate. I cannot remember whether that was to be at the commencement of public business or at a later stage. I think that a later time was favoured.
Our only determination was to ensure that a one-hour debate—a very short debate—would take place. By that process a vote was guaranteed and adverse recommendations from Statutory Instruments Committees could no longer be buried, as they are now, in entirely misleading reports in the Journal of the House that the matter had been considered.
The effect of the present procedure is to ignore and to bury a clear recommendation from a Committee that some further action should be taken. The effect is to disregard a recommendation and falsely to report in the Journal of the House that it is satisfied with what has happened.
I should like to go further than the recommendations that are before us and

ensure that amendable motions are the basis of discussion on statutory instruments on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I do not want the Government to be able to prevent a debate on a Prayer, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I would not expect half of the House to have to be in support of the Prayer for that mechanism to be triggered. As few as 10 Members should be sufficient to secure that a vote can take place on a Prayer where there is some issue and controversy. However, that is not before us today.
We are dealing with modest recommendations. The Leader of the House has told us that he regards the debate as a means of completing the process of dealing with the epoch-making recommendations, as he described them, of the Procedure Committee. We shall not complete that process unless we do something about our delegated legislation procedure. Let us make a beginning by accepting the recommendations that the Select Committee has put before the House.

Mr. David Crouch: I shall not detain the House for long. I say to the House, and especially for the ears of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that I welcome the innovations and reforms that have been enacted so speedily. My right hon. Friend has not become bogged down in the conservatism that is so easily the lot of Leaders of the House. He has listened to the arguments for reform and advanced rapidly in some respects. In some ways there has been rapid advance that might give us cause for reconsideration.
I welcome, I think, the 12 new Select Committees. I think that I have served on Select Committees for about 13 years. I am not on one now. I do not say that in any sense of sour grapes. I understand that I was turned down for one of the new Select Committees because I had an outside interest. When I reflected on that I did not immediately get into a state of high dudgeon and complain to the Leader of the House. In fact, I thought that perhaps the Committee had a point. But on further reflection I realised that the ultimate debate in this House is not upstairs. It is in this Chamber. I still have such an interest when I take part in the


debate on the Floor of the House. I am obliged to declare that interest. It is published in the Register of Members' Interests and I know that all hon. Members know my interest. It happens that I am concerned with an industry that is sensitive in Government. I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. I believe that there are only two or three hon. Members who are so concerned.
I believe it is wrong that an hon. Member who has an outside interest that might appear to be close to the interests of the work of the Committee should be excluded from that Committee. He could exclude himself from it. I was told that because of my interest I had not been chosen and I readily accepted that. But on reflection I think that the House should consider whether it is wise to say that a Member is not suited for a Select Committee because of a special interest. There are occasions when he seeks to speak on a subject, for example, on the general area of health. This House often considers the National Health Service or some Bill relating to health. I believe that it is wrong, when the House is moving along a new road which tends to empty the Chamber of Members and fill Committee rooms, to exclude hon. Members who may have specialist knowledge of subjects from opportunities upstairs that they may not have down here.

Mr. English: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member. For example, I think that it would be quite inappropriate to exclude lawyers from the Committee that was concerned with various types of changes in the law. However, all that the Procedure Committee did was to recommend that the membership of these Committees be recommended to the House by a committee of fellow Members. We did not make any recommendations relevant to the hon. Members' case. We merely suggested that, instead of the Whips alone recommending membership. when they might take all sorts of considerations into account, a committee of Members should do so.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding us that it was not the Procedure Committee that made any such recommendation. I am not complaining, I am merely advising the House that such a decision was arrived at and I believe that the House should reflect on

it and consider whether it was a wise action. I hope that this trend will not develop further. If it does we shall keep out of Committees farmers who know about farming, engineers who know about engineering, journalists who know about the media, and even management consultants who know about managing industry.

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Member is confusing two points. There is all the difference in the world between having engineers who know about engineering and architects who know about architecture on a Committee and having people who have a direct financial stake or interest in the matter before the Committee. It is not a question of having professional specialist knowledge. That is quite a different matter.

Mr. Crouch: It is up to the House to reflect on what I have said and to weigh up the case that I have made for persons like myself.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) is not in his place. I am sorry about that, because I am about to let him down. He spoke to me before the Summer Recess asking me to support motion 3—the recommendation of the Committee that we should form Special Standing Committees. He wished to advance that case and he has been successful in getting the Leader of the House to put the motion on the Order Paper. When I first heard of this I thought that anything which could improve the line-by-line study of a Bill in Committee would be an advantage. However. the advantage of a debate is that one listens to the other side of the of the argument. I stayed in the Chamber particularly to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argue cogently against the proposal and I then listened to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, also well argued. But I think that on balance I come down on the side of the right hon. Member for Down, South because I have served on Standing Committees and Select Committees and there is a big difference between the parliamentarian when he is on a Standing Committee and when he is on a Select Committee.
When one serves on a Standing Committee one is reflecting this Chamber upstairs. Every hon. Member has his


party allegiance and wears his party clothes. He is conscious of the party Whips and if he wishes to argue on a particular point it takes courage to go against party policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some hon. Members may not think that it takes courage—well, perhaps one should say that it takes something—interest and a little energy perhaps.
It is quite a different matter when one goes to serve on a Select Committee. In my experience of eight years on the old Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and five years on the Public Accounts Committee I remember only one occasion on which we came to a vote and were split. That was at least 10 years ago, in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. It is extraordinary that on Select Committees hon. Members come together with an examining approach, questioning witnesses and considering memoranda. There is very much an investigative atmosphere in Select Committees.
If a Standing Committee, wearing its party clothes, forgets those party clothes for the first three or four sittings and sits around the table, I wonder whether the experiment will be successful. Admittedly, we know that we shall have a change of chairman so we shall not have a participating chairman. He will be completely impartial, but I still cannot help wondering whether this experiment will be just an escapade in reform.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has emphasised the party political character of Standing Committees, but would he not agree that that is one of the important criticisms of the process by which we scrutinise legislation? If we give Standing Committees the power to call witnesses, surely we shall give them a certain independence of the political party and surely that is a desirable process.

Mr. Crouch: I am in two minds about this. It is not so much that I enjoy the adversarial approach, either here or upstairs, and sometimes I prefer the analytical parliamentary approach of the investigative activities of Select Committees, but there is a point about pursuing a particular aim which is the aim of one party. It is the Government's aim to get a Bill into a certain shape and it is

the Opposition's aim to oppose it in many areas. That is the adversarial and party approach.
No Procedure Committee, or even recommendation from this House, can alter the attitude of hon. Members and the way that they behave, unless we limit the length of speeches of those seeking to oppose measures upstairs, as we do on Second Reading. There is a great deal of filibustering in Committees, which makes them tedious. In the end, one is faced with the sanction of time. On the Government Benches one is asked to shut up, because the legislation must go through, and never mind the small point that is being argued.
I am prepared to see what happens and accept a trial period of three Sessions.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that whether we are talking about Select Committees, Standing Committees or the Floor of the House, if hon. Members vote for things that they do not believe in strongly, the whole place is a waste of time, irrespective of the procedures that we adopt?

Mr. Crouch: I entirely agree, but that is not the point that I was making. We have heard that many hon. Members on the Government Benches in Committee say nothing because they do not want to waste time. They feel that the talking will be done by the Opposition. That does not apply to me, but the hon. Gentleman should see what happens to the Whips when I exercise my freedom as a critic of all and sundry.
Now that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marleybone has returned, I am prepared to say that I shall give the experiment at least three tries, but I am not wholly convinced that we can turn ourselves from a Select Committee into a Standing Committee successfully. For example, on the Health Services Bill we were in Committee for two months. Had we sent for persons and papers, we should have taken a further two months on each detailed aspect, such as whether family practitioner committees should continue, or whether we should raise money for hospitals through flag days. We used the old procedure, and hon. Members had to equip themselves with what knowledge they could by getting briefed on these subjects.
I listened to the arguments put forward by the right hon. Members for Down, South and for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the motion dealing with European Community legislation. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North is not a very strong European. I still am. I am not terribly happy about the latitude given in subparagraph (b) for the Minister apparently to bypass Parliament when it suits him. I doubt whether I could support that, as a strong European. There must be an opportunity to pray against and to protest. Sometimes it is only one hon. Member who has spotted a significant point in a piece of legislation coming out of the Community that may be detrimental to his constituents' or the country's interests. If such matters can be decided without the House being consulted, and only later will the House know, we are shrugging off an essential duty of this Chamber.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I propose to deal solely with the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am Chairman. I hope to express the views of the members of the Committee.
That Committee is in an entirely different position from other parliamentary bodies which scrutinise the Executive and Government of this country. Our Committee scrutinises the activities, legislation and propositions of a body outside this country in which our Government plays a small part. Also, we are considering legislation that this Parliament cannot reverse. We must always remember that. That is why such attention was paid to that procedure by the Foster committee several years ago.
Members of the Committee generally welcome the proposals, on the Scrutiny Committee with certain reservations. Apart from the proposals from the Procedure Committee, most of the others have been suggested by our own Committee.
With regard to motion 4, the present procedure in the Standing Committee on European Community documents has been a farce. The Committee had a limited amount of time and has come to no conclusion. There has been no impact on the proceedings of the House. For all practical purposes, this Committee has

been abandoned. I welcome the proposals in motion 4.
With regard to whether a piece of legislation or a document should be discussed by the House or in Standing Committee, our Committee has already stated that it will adopt its former practice of making its own recommendation. Naturally it is for the Government or for the 20 hon. Members who stand up to decide whether that recommendation is accepted.
Our Committee generally favours the line proposed in the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to secure that the matter should be voted on at the commencement of business or at 10 o'clock. These are only votes and not a debate, and will not exert undue pressure on the time of the House or the Government. After a Committee has made a recommendation, the business should not be delegated to a time late in the night, with only a few hon. Members remaining. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
On motion 5, the Leader of the House knows that on behalf of my Committee I have made representations suggesting a form of words which, in general, have been accepted. We believe that if, for special reasons, a Minister agrees to a decision in Brussels before a debate takes place in the House, he should not only explain his reasons to the House but should explain them orally. For that reason, I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to accept amendment (d) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. On a few occasions recently Ministers have got out of their obligations by making written statements in reply to questions. That is not good enough.
The members of my Committee agree that the occasions when a Minister has to go outside our recommendations and agree to a decision in Brussels should be few and far between and should occur only in exceptional circumstances. We say that there should be a loophole, but that it should be used rarely. Our recommendation should not impose an undue burden on Government time.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I pay tribute to the good work that the hon. Gentleman has done as Chairman of his Committee, but on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio


alterius, with which he will be familiar, does he mean by implication that the House should withhold approval from the other amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and should leave the wording as it is, with the Minister as his own judge of whether reasons are special?
My experience of the legislative processes of the Community, which is not inconsiderable after six years, is that the pace is slow and it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which there would be such an emergency as to deny the application of the principles indicated in the amendments.

Mr. Silverman: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to some extent. If the Government would organise their business within the Community properly, many of the occasions when urgent action became necessary could be avoided, but I accept that there may be exceptional circumstances or unforeseen developments that call for sudden action. I am prepared to agree that a Minister should have a loophole, but he should immediately afterwards give an oral statement to the House on which he can be questioned.
Amendment (a), which has not been selected, provided for a ban on Ministers agreeing to anything in Brussels before a debate in the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My question was directed to amendments (b) and (c).

Mr. Spearing: Do I understand that in my hon. Friend's recommendation concerning amendment (d) he was expressing the view of the Scrutiny Committee. which was without dissent? Is the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) asking my hon. Friend to state his personal position on amendments (b) and (c) or the view of the Scrutiny Committee, which, in fact, may not yet have taken a view on those matters?

Mr. Silverman: There has been some discussion in the Scrutiny Committee and I shall be able to express the Commit. tee's view on amendments (b) and (c).
Amendment (c) deals with the Scrutiny Committee itself, giving consent. The difficulty is that that is not practicable. One of the main difficulties arises during

the long recess when the Committee does not meet. In cases of urgency, the problem is usually that it is not possible to go to the Committee in time. The Committee is being reasonable. It says that there needs to be a loophole, but that it should be used only in exceptional cases.
Amendment (b) proposes that when a matter comes before the House it should be on a motion. The Committee has discussed that proposal but has not come to a conclusion on it. In recent years. under successive Governments, such matters have usually come before the House as a motion. The amendment has been complied with in practice and the Committee has little to complain about. I do not know whether it is necessary to press the amendment.
Motion 10 arises out of a report of the Committee in July 1978 following a shambles in the House when legislation that was not based on a Commission document was debated in the House. An hon. Member then pointed out that the matter did not come within the provisions of our Standing Orders because it was not a Commission document. Motion 10 places other Community documents on the same basis as Commission documents.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North does not intend to press his amendment (b), which was probably tabled because of a misunderstanding of the position. We approve of this. It is not important. All it amounts to is a proposal that it is not necessary to move a motion in order to get these instruments discussed by the House after the interruption of business at 10 pm.
Those are the Committee's views. I hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to indicate that he is prepared to accept the two amendments that I have mentioned. They are essential and will impose no particular burden on the Government. Generally speaking, we welcome the proposals.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall focus the attention of the House on the recommendations concerning the Special Standing Committees. I welcome the recommendations. They are important. One of the most telling criticisms of the


way in which this House conducts itself is the manner in which hon. Members process and scrutinise legislation. Although I have been in this place for only 14 months, I feel that we are failing to do that task properly. One of the problems is the volume of legislation. I thought that I should remind myself of the volume of legislation that we are passing by contrasting the 1911 Parliament with the 1975 Parliament.
Hon. Members will recall that the 1911 Parliament was one of the great reforming Parliaments of all time. I looked in the Library at the volume of statutes. I found that the 1911 Parliament passed 58 statutes which were contained fairly comfortably in one volume. When I looked at 1975—I chose that year as an example with no hostile intention—I found that 83 statutes were passed, which were incorporated in three volumes, each of them equal to the 1911 volume. This paid no attention to the statutory instruments, which were contained in no fewer than 15 volumes. One could not conceive of bringing that number of volumes into the Chamber for the purposes of demonstration.
This burden and volume of legislation is a real concern. The House must grasp, as I am sure it does, the fact that much of the legislation that we are passing is of an extremely complex character and imposes considerable burdens on large and small sections of the population. Both in Standing Committee and in this Chamber, hon. Members are ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of the legislation involved. Finance Bills of an enormously convoluted kind come before us. If we wish to scruntinise that legislation, we are bound to rely on our own researches, on our own Front Bench—always a doubtful thing to do—on the party brief, on the Library, or on people who are keen enough to lobby us. This process, by its very nature, is inadequate.
It is highly desirable that interested bodies should come before a Committee to explain that legislation is defective or oppressive, giving reasons and suggesting that hon. Members should do this, that or the other. I believe that Standing Committees and this Chamber should be well informed. I believe that, if possible, hon. Members should be more independent than is the case at present. The natural tendency simply to support one's

Front Bench derogates enormously from the authority of this place.
I should like to make two points about the proposal concerning Special Standing Committees. I recognise why the fact-finding process should be confined to 28 days. That seems perfectly sensible. I do not understand, however, why we should say that there should be only four half-day sessions, especially when one is to be in private and only three are to be public evidence-taking sessions. I cannot understand why the Chairman of such a Standing Committee should not say We will take as much evidence as we deem necessary provided that we do not exceed the 28-day period."

Mr. Spearing: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question straight away. My recollection of the reason is that, if a proposal was wide open within the 28 days in which that Committee could meet on a large number of occasions and provide a particularly wide opportunity for the time and commitment of hon. Members, the principal proposal would not have been acceptable to the House. The limitations were therefore written in.

Mr. Hogg: That is a good pragmatic argument in favour of the restriction. It does not go to the principle that I put forward, namely, that the fact-finding process should be as wide and extensive as possible. This brings me to the other point with which I believe the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will also disagree. Standing Committees, so far as I am aware, do not have power to instruct advisers, although Select Committees do have the power. I can see no reason in principle why a Standing Committee, serving as a Special Standing Committee, should not have the power to instruct independent advisers to advise it. It would be helpful.
I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The criticisms of his speech can also be directed at the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). They argued that we should see in the Standing Committees merely a reflection of this House. If it is a fair criticism of this House to say that it is imprisoned by the party system, the same criticism is to be made of the Standing Committees. I want to loosen the vice. I will do anything that I believe


will release the grip of the party system of government on the present method of conducting our affairs. That is one of the important reasons why we should give the Standing Committees both the power to call evidence and the power to instruct advisers. We want to give these bodies—essentially our only scrutiny bodies—a status that is slowly becoming independent of the Executive or, alternatively, of the Opposition.
I want to strengthen the view that these Committees have an obligation, not primarily to their party, whether Government or Opposition, but to their own judgment. If these Committees were given the power to sit and listen to evidence and to assess the professional advice that was tendered, they would be more independent than at present. I would welcome that development.

Mr. Jay: I was once a member and, indeed, Chairman, of a Select Committee that had expert advisers and took evidence from a great many expert people. Before long, it fell entirely under the grip of the party system that the hon. Gentleman dislikes so much.

Mr. Hogg: This is a danger. I am not suggesting that any proposal that I have put forward would remedy this problem. It is deep-seated in the way that we govern ourselves. If one goes back in our history, one finds that when we were an effective controlling body, we were essentially independent of the Executive. Going back a long time, one finds that the King's Ministers were outside Parliament, at least in many of their functions. The process of control can be properly operated only when there is a degree of separation between the legislature and the Executive. When they are merged in the same body the process of scrutiny and control becomes virtually impossible. For that reason, I emphasise the importance of the independence of any institution through which we exercise our powers of scrutiny and control.

Mr. Crouch: Is not my hon. Friend confusing the function of an hon. Member when he is on a Committee to examine a Bill? If he wants to take Committees out of the vice of party control and allow them freedom upstairs to operate as Select Committees—taking advice and not relying on the party line—he

should go the whole way and say that Bills should be examined completely by the Select Committee process. Does he agree that after the three or four sittings, or the 28 days, the Committee members will revert to their party positions and return to the Standing Committee process?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. It is clear that the scrutiny of a Bill has to be entrusted to an ad hoc Committee. It is not reasonable to ask Select Committees to maintain detailed scrutiny on Bills as they come from the House. We have to rely on ad hoc Committees. If we do that the evidence-taking process must be entrusted to that Committee which subsequently will have to review the legislation line by line.
If we are effectively to discharge our traditional and historic task, which is scrutiny of legislation and control of public finance, we must try to fortify the independence of the institutions upon which we rely for that purpose. The establishment of a Special Standing Committee is a small step towards that. I support it strongly on that ground.

Mr. John Garrett: I welcome the proposals to establish Special Standing Committees on Bills and to convene a Procedure Committee to consider Supply. However, in both cases my welcome is somewhat qualified.
It is obvious that the present system of Standing Committees on Bills is not adequate for an effective parliamentary scrutiny of the content of Bills. Standing Committees make a genuine attempt to amend Bills, but much more time is spent simply in attempts to delay them. Much time is also spent genuinely seeking explanations of the content and meaning of Bills. Many of the explanations would be better sought under a Select Committee format through the cross-examination of Ministers, civil servants and expert witnesses. Explanatory papers, which might be important, could be placed before the Committee. This could provide a genuine opportunity to open an enhanced debate on public legislation—to reveal thoroughly the intention of the legislation, for example.
The reform involves a considerable risk which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)


and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). The risk is that, far from being an attempt to unravel the complexities of a Bill in a more or less objective way, it becomes simply a time-consuming exercise in which rival tame experts defend or attack the Bill at the instigation of the Government or the Opposition. The Government might choose to wheel in civil servants to say that the Bill was a noble and essential creation; the Opposition might wheel in experts to say that it was rubbish. We should still not comprehend the intent of the Bill and we should be no more enlightened at the end of the exercise than at the beginning. That risk apart, the reform is well worth our perseverance.
If Committee members could bring themselves to behave responsibly, a Finance Bill would be the ideal Bill for such a Committee. Much of the interchange on a Finance Bill involves asking Ministers questions. The Minister turns to a civil servant for the meaning of "a close company" or "an oilfield" and the Committee has to wait for a distorted reply to come back through the Minister from the civil servant.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the language in Finance Bills is totally unintelligible? Does he agree that the drafting of legislation is a fundamental reason why we do not discuss matters properly? The language used in Finance Bills in particular is ridiculous.

Mr. Garrett: That is all the more reason for trying a new method to unravel the complexities of the language.
The first main reform proposed by the 1977–78 Procedure Committee to be implemented was the setting up of departmentally related Select Committees. This was an important development and has been universally welcomed. However, the House was provided with a structure for scrutiny but with little else. It was only a first step and the Leader of the House over-emphasised the achievements that he attributed to the Select Committee structure. Much more development needs to take place.
In order to make the Committees fully effective, at least three changes are required. First, they must develop a more systematic approach to the Departments that they shadow. Secondly, the Commit-

tees need more research staff. They need full-time expert research staff instead of outside experts engaged for the duration of the inquiry. They need some countervailing power of their own in research and analysis to set against research and analysis that the Government provide in evidence.
Thirdly, the Committees can function with full effect only if they are provided with far better information on the performance of Departments. They need what one might call a management information system rather than a historical compendium, which the supply procedure has become.
When I say that the Committee should take a more systematic approach, I refer to the way in which they operate now. Apart from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which I exempt from the criticism which I am about to make, and up to a point the Social Services Committee, the Committees concentrate on single issues. For example, the Defence Committee has examined munitions storage and pilot training. The Agriculture Committee examined the CAP on dairy products and animal welfare. The Education and Science Committee studied the British library services, the funding of courses in higher education and the future of the promenade concerts. The Home Affairs Committee has studied the "sus" laws.
They are important questions and they have given rise to some useful reports which have thrown light into dark corners. However, they illustrate the preoccupation of many hon. Members with single issues rather than with departmental. overall systems for setting objectives and priorities in policy programmes. By concentrating on single issues, the Departments are never obliged to justify their spending or their aims in respect of producing some public good.
In addition to studying individual issues, it would be more sensible to set up Sub-Committees which could ask each Department "What are your overall priorities? What is the justification? What is the aim of your spending programmes? How do you propose to measure their impact on the community? What is the operating efficiency of the sections in your Department?" The Committees should view the Departments


as management systems with outputs in services and other community goods.
For such an approach, the Committees must employ expert staffs. They must have permanent specialists. Each Committee would need a dozen or more such experts. However, I understand that there is strong resistance from the Government to the provision of specialist staff on that scale. There would be, would there not? They would arm the specialist Committees with much more effective tools of inquiry. It is incredible that that nineteenth century relic, the Public Accounts Committee, has 650 staff examining whether books balance, yet the 10 departmentally related Select Committees that are supposed to consider policy have fewer than 50 staff between them. That gives an idea of the order of priorities in the House.
In addition to more staff, the Select Committee system cannot function without better information—information that would enable Departments to answer the questions that I have posed. We do not have the information to enable us to examine the effectiveness of spending programmes or the efficiency of Departments. Parliament has never insisted on the provision of information. The regular information that we have is provided by the Supply procedure of Estimates, Votes and Appropriation accounts that was invented in the 1860s to stop fraud and misappropriation. It had nothing to do with explaining to Parliament the purposes of the expenditure. In the public expenditure surveys that are steadily becoming less informative and the mass of unrelated incomprehensible statistical data poured out by Departments, we have a mountain of data but no information. We are told what we are spending but never what we are buying. We cannot tell from the Supply procedure the efficiency of a Department. We cannot tell from the public expenditure surveys how effective is a spending programme.
For years the Expenditure Committee asked for departmental spending to be broken down by accountable units within a Department so that we could examine the efficiency of individual parts of Departments, measure effectiveness—the

results achieved by the spending programmes and attach the results to spending programmes in the public expenditure survey. The Treasury has always said that that was too difficult. It said that it would be too burdensome for Members to be provided with that information and that the public expenditure survey would be a great volume instead of the slim, uninformative document that it is at present.
Those arguments are absolute rubbish. There have been massive advances in the processing of information and the management of Government in recent years that belie the Treasury position. For example, the United States federal budget—there is a copy of one a couple of years old in the Library—shows how it is possible to present information to a legislature that shows the purpose of spending and the results of past spending and illustrates the key policy decisions of departments.
Our Supply procedure shows separate Votes varying in size from thousands of millions of pounds to a few hundred pounds. It does not show which divisions of a Department are responsible for spending, and it tells us nothing of the past or prospective management performance of the Department. Let us consider the Class XI Health and Personal Social Services, Supply Estimates for 1980–81. The classification is nothing short of eccentric. In the health Vote, which comes to £7¾ billion, there is one category of £7 billion on advances to health authorities, yet separately shown is £28,000 to a midwife teachers' training college. It shows £540,000 on capital advances to health authorities, yet separately shown is £61,000 to certain religious bodies for hospital services. There is no sense in that sort of classification. I think that it was invented to conceal rather than to illuminate.
If we look at the chapter on health and personal social services, we would not know that the aim of that spending was to improve somebody's health. We would think that it existed solely to fund institutions, which is an intermediate objective. It is true that money should be available for the institutions, but we do not know at the end of the day whether the nation's health improved in any way as a result.
Similarly, the public expenditure survey, in which one might expect longer-term studies of the results of past spending, and the White Paper produced at the beginning of every year show huge aggregations of money thrown at what target we do not know. The current division in health expenditure gives only current and capital expenditure. At the back of that section there are all sorts of statistics that bear no relation to spending—for example, the number of in-patient days for a period five years ago, the size of doctors' caseloads, and so on. But we are unable to relate any of the output measures to the money spent. We have no idea of the intended impact in the community of the money spent. We have no idea of the relationships between programmes or between spending and tax reliefs. We have no idea whether it is more effective to make a grant or to give a tax relief to an individual as an anti-poverty measure, or to a company as a means to promote innovation. Those questions are not illustrated in the regular data that we receive.
We cannot use the account survey and the pile of statistics to establish public accountability. We cannot tell who carries the can. We cannot examine the policies or the results of Departments. We need to return to square one with the Supply procedure and ask ourselves what is the proper form of our national accounts that is required to enable us to examine the purposes, objectives and results of expenditure, the way that expenditure reflects policies, the efficiency with which Departments discharge their tasks and the accountability of Departments.
The details of Supply may seem technical and boring, but I believe that a reform of the Supply procedure and a new look at the way in which we present our national accounts and statistics is at the heart of public accountability and is long overdue for a thorough scrutiny by the House.

Sir Graham Page: I wish to address my remarks first to one or two of the recommendations concerning delegated legislation, which are not included in the Government motions. Much has been said already about our ineffective procedure for enabling Parliament to keep control of Executive legislation, delegated legislation, subordinate legis-

lation, or whatever one chooses to call it. But no Parliament could function if it did not use the device of delegated legislation. It would be overburdened with detail and would have to sit all hours of the day and all days of the year. However, as one has to resort to that sort of device to make Parliament and government function, it is essential that Parliament keeps control, or at least the power to supervise and control, the legislation so delegated.
First, we have a responsibility, which is only seldom realised, when we are passing the parent statute that gives the power to delegate. We have no rules or conventions as to the form of scrutiny that the delegated legislation is to take in any particular case. If a Minister is advised by his civil servants: "In this case your directions should be put in a statutory instrument", the Minister will probably reply "Good gracious, does that mean that I shall have to face prayers, or are you suggesting that I have to put it to an affirmative resolution?" The civil servant might reply "Oh no, Minister, simply say that it must be laid; there is no parliamentary procedure applicable to it then."
I shall not mention the Department concerned, but shortly before one Christmas there was an occasion when a Secretary of State made two orders. Those who knew how to lay an order in the House were too busy with the Christmas party. They sent the office boy to the House to lay the two instruments. The office boy had no clue how to lay them. He wandered around a rather empty House, which was in recess, returned to the Christmas party and put the orders on the desk. Came Easter! Another party was held, someone moved the desk and the orders were found behind it. That is the sort of disregard that Departments show for legislation which should at least be laid before the House. In that instance they lost only two orders.
Recently a Department lost two words when putting before the House an order which had to be made by the Secretary of State within a certain period after a report. It was found that two words were missing from the order. They were important since the order did not make sense without them. The Department therefore had it reprinted. Because it was rushed for time, it had the whole order


reprinted including the Secretary of State's signature. Therefore, the order that was eventually laid before the House was not one that had been signed by the Secretary of State. The principle put forward by those civil servants before the Scrutiny Committee was: "Oh, but this is what the Secretary of State intended to sign and therefore it must be deemed to be what he did sign and is quite in order." The House will find that reported in a report from the Scrutiny Committee.
So, we have seen how two orders and two words were lost. Recently there was the loss of two weeks when a Department failed to notice the expiry of an order that needed an affirmative resolution in the House within 28 days. As a result—and I do not think that the people concerned knew this—many people at the Lancaster House conference were sitting there for a fortnight and were illegally in the country. The Department was nervous to bring forward another order and show that it had made a mistake. In evidence to us it stated that it would shortly be embodied in an Act and so it did not matter that there had been a gap during which people had been in the country illegally. Perhaps the Secretary of State did not intend that, so it was deemed that the order he had made remained a good order.
That is the sort of way in which the officials in many Departments treat the need for this House to examine subordinate legislation. I can assure the House that some of the matters that come before the Scrutiny Committee are at times frightening. It is important, therefore, that at the beginning, when we are passing the parent statute, we should be clear about the form that the scrutiny will take. Should it merely be a statutory instrument that is laid before the House? Should it be one that is subject to annulment by a prayer within 40 days? Incidentally, that does not mean 40 days of the sitting of this House, because if the other place is sitting the 40 days start to run. If anyone intends to pray against an order that was made during the recess they had better calculate the days that the other place has been sitting if they are intending to table a prayer within 40 days of the order having been laid.
One might think that the best approach is by affirmative resolution, that we

should provide in the parent statute on as many occasions as we think right that the Secretary of State, being given a power to legislate, should do it by first laying a draft before the House. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House opened the debate he objected to any provision that such a draft should first be examined by the Scrutiny Committee before it came before the House. He said that that would clog up the wheels of government—I paraphrase him. He must know that there have been four occasions in the past few years when the Government—I think this applies to Governments of both parties—have brought a draft order before the House, the House has solemnly debated it, someone from the Scrutiny Committee has reminded the House that the Committee has not looked at it, the House has solemnly approved it, the Scrutiny Committee has then advised against it on the ground that it was ultra vires, and the draft has had to be withdrawn. That has been an utter waste of the time of the House.
Under present practices, therefore, it is not always safe to require an affirmative resolution for a draft that has been laid. We could greatly improve the procedure and create a certain amount of safety for the House if we were to adopt recommendation (15). That provides that a statutory instrument should not be brought before the House until it has been examined by the Select Committee and so reported on. We should also adopt recommendation (17), that if the House receives an adverse report from the Select Committee the affirmative procedure should apply if otherwise the negative procedure would apply; that is, if it is a statutory instrument against which an hon. Member can pray, and it is reported by the Select Committee, that would turn it into one which needs an affirmative resolution. That means that the Government must bring it before the House.
It may be that the House will not want to debate the instrument. It may go through on the nod. But, at least, then we are assured that there is an opportunity to debate it and not, as there is now with a prayer, the problem of trying to arrange through the usual channels that the prayer be given time. In such circumstances, unless one can work up a public scandal about the matter and have


it reported in headlines in the popular press, one is unlikely, through the usual channels, to get time set aside. Of course, if one does manage to get the time set aside for a prayer, the prayer is sent upstairs to one of the useless standing Committees dealing with statutory instruments.
Perhaps a small solution to the uselessness of the present Standing Committee procedures relating to statutory instruments would be that for at least a year after a Bill had received the Royal Assent or came into operation it should be possible to recall the Standing Committee that examined the Bill to deal with any statutory instruments issued by the Secretary of State. That Committee would know what power it intended to give the Secretary of State in the delegated legislation and would be able to deal with the statutory instruments with some interest.
The House must take back the power to control delegated legislation. The volume of that legislation is probably greater than the volume of statutes as we are passing them now. But certainly the details of the delegated legislation affect the individual citizen more closely than the clauses of a Bill or the sections of a statute. They contain the detail that affects the citizen and govern his life far more than the Acts that we put on the statute book.
I wish to move on to two other motions. The first is No. 3 dealing with the mixture of a Select and Standing Committee. I fear that if we tack a Select Committee on to a Standing Committee at the beginning of its sittings, that Select Committee will act in exactly the way a Standing Committee acts now on a poltically motivated Bill. There would be silence on one side and questioning from the other—and political questioning, too. I think that this recommendation was made before we set up the departmentally related Select Committees. Why have a dog and bark oneself? We have set up departmental Select Committees, and although some reports have been minority reports based on political affiliations, on the whole the Select Committees are not acting in the political way that a Standing Committee acts in dealing with a Bill. We should keep the Standing Committees and not try to combine them with—if I may say so—an amateur Select Committee.
The second part of motion 3 states that the undertakings should be dealt with in Standing Committee. I recall that I gave evidence suggesting that. It is a matter that I have always held to be complete nonsense as it stands. The draftsmen, although they may have an amendment on the Order Paper for weeks before it is reached, will never draft that amendment as the Government want it even though they are advising the Secretary of State to accept it. Either they should draft the amendment there and then or leave it to the end of the Committee proceedings, recommit the clauses that it affects, finish with it in Committee and not bring it back to the House on Report. That is a waste of the time of the House. I am sure that the proposal in the second part of motion 3 is satisfactory.
Motion 5 deals with the reporting to the House of European legislation to which a Minister has agreed before it has been debated in the House, as recommended by the European Legislation Committee. Having had experience of recent occasions when a Minister has reported by way of an answer to a planted written question, I find that unsatisfactory. It should be possible to question a Minister on why he thought that his agreement was so urgent. Therefore, I hope that the House will support amendment (b).
But I would like an assurance that what is meant by "European legislation" is not only that which applies directly but that which has to be embodied in our law either by statute, by delegated legislation, or otherwise.
Three types of legislation originate in the Commission. There is the regulation that applies directly, and it may be said that that is all we need in this motion because we never get a chance to debate it; we can debate only the penalties that we put on it. Then there is the directive which has to be embodied in our legislation, whether it is in primary or delegated legislation. It may be said that that is not important because the House is bound to debate it at some stage as a statutory instrument or as a clause in a Bill. But that is not so, because there is the power that is used, not frequently but frequently enough, to bring a directive into operation by administrative action.
For example, with regard to approval of types of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts, the Department claims that it can bring decisions into operation purely by administrative action without the House ever hearing about it. At present, if a Minister thought that agreement was urgent he could agree and then announce his agreement in a written answer. It is then enforced by administrative action and the House will never have an opportunity of considering the proposal for that legislation in any form, or the result of the Minister's agreement. I should like an assurance that what is meant by European legislation is everything that is or would be put before the European Legislation Committee. At least that Committee has a definition of it which would cover the sort of proposals that I have explained.
There are more important points in the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and perhaps more important points in the motions on the Order Paper, but I return to my first "love"—the delegated legislation. It is the duty of the House to take in hand the growing scandal of the lack of control that we in this House have over the Executive when it is legislating for the citizen.

Mr. Michael English: I should like to add my congratulations to the many that have been showered upon the Leader of the House. He has brought the Procedure Committee recommendations before the House and he has endeavoured to implement most, if not all, of them. I welcome the setting up of the Procedure Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who has made a deep study of the matter, pointed out, there is something radically wrong with our procedures for approving enormous sums of expenditure. For over a century there has been a Contingencies Fund. which should not be confused with the contingencies reserve. At one time we spent money on floods, tempests, and so on. During the last few years 2 per cent. of all Supply expenditure on a rolling basis goes to that fund—over £1 billion—which can be spent without any approval by Parliament. It was used to set up BNOC. The money then has to be replenished after the event from

the Supply expenditure. It has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, and by the Expenditure Committee, which take an interest in such matters. I hope that the new Procedure Committee will also take an interest in it.
I chaired a Sub-Committee of the Procedure Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others were members. We discussed simultaneously the Standing Orders relating to statutory instruments and to European legislation. Although they are distinctly different, there are similarities in the procedure and in the remedies. I am glad that the European Community proposals are included on the Order Paper basically in the form in which we suggested. I realise that there are certain modifications, which I shall not go into at this hour. If the Leader of the House really wants to allow 20 Members to add to the burden of work on the Floor of the House, I do not mind. We did not propose that. We suggested that those matters should be discussed in Committee. But I warn the Leader of the House that, now that the European Community procedure has been sorted out in this way, if 20 Members do so rise, particularly if they are 20 PPSs prompted by Ministers who do not want the matter discussed, he would not get away with the previous excuse that there was too big a log-jam and that it would be too much of a burden. If instruments are prevented from being discussed in Committee, the Government will have to find time to discuss them on the Floor of the House. He did not have to put it back. We did not suggest it. But now that the Government themselves have done it, they will find that they may have created a rod for their own backs.
Although we dealt with statutory instruments and European orders at the same time, the statutory instruments are completely left out. That is strange. Upon investigation, I understand that perhaps it is not so much the right hon. Gentleman's desire to leave them out but, rather, that the business managers of the House have some worries about the procedure. We said that a new standing order should be created. In fact, that is set out in the amendment in the names


of members of all four parties represented on the Procedure Committee. We also said that:
any Member should be able to take part in the deliberations of a committee, and should be able to move motions or amendments",
though not vote. What is wrong with that? The Whips may find difficulty in staffing boring Standing Committees, but why should they wish to prevent those who are interested from coming along and saying their piece?
Our second recommendation related to the 20 or more Members rising in their places. That was intended to help the Government by not burdening the Floor of the House. Our third recommendation was that a Committee should in future consider a proper motion
that the Committee recommend that the instrument be approved",
instead of the silly "have considered" motion which has hitherto been discussed in the debate. We slightly lengthened the time of the Committee, but that is the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman could have changed. We said that.
if a committee recommend the approval of instrument, the subsequent motion in the House should, as at present, be put forth-with, but at the commencement of public business".
The only change there relates to where in the day's business this should be placed. These represent quite small amendments that were not designed to burden the Government or to distort the procedure of the House in an anti-Government way.
I have added my name to amendment (a) to motion No. 1 in the terms of the proposal of the Procedure Committee. I do not agree with every word of it. I did not agree that it should not be possible to initiate the procedure on a Friday. If hon. Members choose not to come on a Friday, I believe that that is their problem and not something that we should legislate for. There are other small points. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this away and discuss it again with the business managers of the House, the point being that we on the Procedure Committee did not automatically assume that everything we proposed should be approved by the House by way of a text that was identical to what we suggested. We imagined that the Government might wish to make changes and that the House itself might wish to do so. But it seems to me that the Leader

of the House is abrogating his responsibilities if we are not to do anything about our existing statutory instrument procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman's powers and responsibilities are far greater than he perhaps thinks. He said earlier that he was in favour of pre-legislation Committees. I do not think that a "Committee", in the singular, has ever been a practicable matter, for the simple reason that there is too much legislation for one Committee to deal with. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to have pre-legislation committees, all that he has to do is to persuade one of his departmental colleagues, or perhaps himself, in his capacity as Minister for the Arts, to send the instructions to the draftsmen to one of the existing Select Committees before they go to the draftsmen, so that the Select Committee can consider the details of legislation before it is drafted. That would be extremely simple. One would not need a resolution of the House. The Select Committees already exist, and I am sure that most of them would he willing to consider such instructions if they were offered. It is governmental secrecy and reservations which caused this not to happen. There is now a structure which would enable pre-legislation matters to be considered if the Government so wished.
Two quite small recommendations, (47) and (48), were proposed by the Procedure Committee. One is down on the Order Paper for discussion tomorrow and I shall not deal with it now. The other simply permits the proceedings of Sub-Committees to be published. We recommended that they should be published. At present, if a Member wishes to write a minority report, he has to wait until the report drafted by a Sub-Committee reaches the main Committee, and discuss it all over again in order to make sure that his minority report or amendment appears in the printed text of the proceedings. That is a waste of time. I totally fail to understand why such an innocuous little proposal, which no one on the Procedure Committee thought controversial, should not appear.
I come finally to the issue of the Special Standing Committees. Our Standing Committees are most peculiar bodies. They were created by accident. On page 63 of the first Procedure report hon. Members


will find a detailed history of our procedure. The extraordinary thing is that before the latter half of the 19th century we had a procedure whereby Bills which were not dealt with on the Floor of the House were dealt with in Select Committees. Almost every legislature on earth has copied that practice. Therefore, our Standing Committees, which are a modern invention, are unique to this legislature and to a few of the more recent Commonwealth legislatures. However, in America, Europe and everywhere else, legislation is considered by what we would call Select Committees, It is not considered by mini Houses of Commons such as Standing Committees represent.
I shall not go into the details of all this, but it is true to say that originally Standing Committees were also intended to be Select Committees of the sort that our specialist departmentally related Select Committees are. As a compromise, Standing Committees were, until 1948, given all the powers of Select Committees. They always had the power to call witnesses until 1948, although they never exercised it, basically for the strange historic reason that Bonar Law did not want them to. Therefore, the House of Commons never really intended to arrive at the boring and useless Standing Committee procedure that it now has.

Mr. George Cunningham: indicated dissent.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend will be replying to the debate. No doubt most Front Bench spokesmen will take the view that Standing Committees are incredibly useful devices. They are perhaps useful in keeping Back Benchers quiet, but they certainly waste a great deal of time compared with Select Committees.
While the Leader of the House is undertaking this experiment with regard to the Special Standing Committees, I had hoped that he would also have undertaken an experiment using existing procedure. It is already possible to refer Bills to Select Committees for their Committee stage. In fact, that is regularly done every three or five years in respect of our Army Act revision. I strongly recommend that, as well as experimenting with three Bills under this proposed new procedure, the Leader of the House runs a concurrent

experiment with another three Bills in Select Committees, so that in a couple of years' time we could see which procedure worked better. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, we shall unfortunately be unable to test the experiment properly. As the scientists put it, it will not be a controlled experiment.
Almost every hon. Member has criticised the proposed procedure in motion 3. Unlike the departmentally related Select Committees, this was not unanimous in the Procedure Committee. I believe that all the critics are right, basically because we could deal with legislation in Select Committees much better and more effectively. They already have the power to call witnesses and they are masters of their own procedure. They cannot be filibustered out of existence because, if they want to, they can curtail the debate. As long as the Government do not lose their majority, they can deal with the matter effectively.
The procedure in motion 3 is an undesirable compromise. I do not propose to fight it to the bitter end. I think that an experiment should be tried, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try the experiment of Select Committees.
One of the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is certainly valid—that the content of our legislation is atrocious. Books have been written on this subject. Our drafting methods are far behind those used in some other countries where clear legislation can be produced setting out the rules and the principles of whatever is the subject of the legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right—as he so often is—in saying that something should be done about pre-legislation. I suggested to him a method of doing it without involving changes in the procedure of the House. I hope that he will let us at some time have a dialogue between a Committee and a Department on what legislation it would like, before the heavy hand controlled by the Victorian precedents of some of our draftsmen is laid upon the ideas of Ministers.

Mr. Bowen Wells: It is with some diffidence, as a new Member of 15 months standing, that I seek to intervene in a debate on the procedure of this House. I do so not


from a profound knowledge of the procedures of this House, as the length of my stay would indicate, but with a profound concern for the way in which this House has been conducting its business in relation to what we call Supply.
One of the primary functions of this House—-what the ordinary taxpayer and the ordinary elector outside expect us to do—is at least to control the amount of money supplied to the Government, and therefore the amount of taxation imposed upon the ordinary citizen of this country only by this House.
When we examine in any detail the way in which we do this, it is quite clear that this House has long since given up any serious attempt to fulfil what I regard as one of our primary duties. By not insisting upon that control we have endangered this very important democratic parliamentary institution, and because it does not do its duty properly and because its debates on this subject are not properly informed, what happens is that the public's esteem of this House is thus reduced.
It is with great diffidence, therefore, that I say how much I appreciate the work that has gone on in this House on the procedure, particularly in relation to the control of Supply. I should like to join the chorus of congratulation to the Leader of the House on setting up the Procedure Committee on Supply. It is incredibly important not just from the constitutional point of view that I have just mentioned but because it affects the the way in which the whole of the Government machinery and our nationalised industries work.
All Members of this House will know that we vote the money to the Government for one year only. This results in incredible distortion and a great deal of waste of public money because of the rigidities which the Treasury in turn imposes upon the budgets and upon the expenditure of Government Departments and nationalised industries. It produces some absurd results which, unless we begin to change the procedure of this House, the Treasury cannot avoid. Therefore, of course, we have to consider a way in which we can carry over money voted in one year to another. I hope that the Committee will consider that matter. But it should not lead to

a diminution in the control over expenditure of any of the bodies involved.
I am, quite frankly, shocked by the lack of financial control which is displayed by the many documents which come before this House in relation to the Government's expenditure. They would not be tolerated, I suggest, in any other forum. The figures cannot be related one to the other. We cannot take the Budget and say "This is what the Department intends to spend and this is what it intends to spend it on" and compare it with what is actually spent. There is no way of doing that, as far as I can determine.
At the end of the Session there is introduced a Bill called the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to make up for all those expenditures which were at first not estimated. We know that by tradition we pass the Bill without even a cursory examination, yet it contains a major part of the total Government expenditure of the year. This is, of course. the way in which the Civil Service and the Executive get round any kind of control that we might have in this House over the finances and the supply of money to the Government. This is an utter sham and a really disgraceful way in which to run the nation's affairs.
It is therefore marvellous that we have got to the position where it seems that there is now a coincidence of interest between the Executive and the House. in that both see that an incoming Government has been unable to control the Civil Service expenditure. It should now join with this House in asking the House to take back its power—which everybody in this country expects it to have and to exercise—and to begin to control the expenditure within this House, with the help and co-operation of the Ministers and the civil servants involved. That must be the high objective of setting up the new Committee, and I sincerely hope that it will result in a procedure of which we can be proud and which will enable us to do our duty.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is a little ironic that a debate on procedure covers such a wide range of topics, with no commonality and no coherence. One of the great strengths of the procedure of the House is that


we proceed by motion. question, debate and decision, each a separate process, and usually on one question at a time. For convenience, we often group matters together, and the Chair will allow debate notionally on the first question when there are other matters arising on the other questions, but it does so only when it is a matter of coherence and commonality of topic. That is not true of the topics before us tonight. There are 34 recommendations and 10 separate motions, to which there are eight amendments. The previous debate was largely about setting up specialist Select Committees.
I am not suggesting that the procedure that we are adopting is wrong, but sometimes a balance is required when we depart from the fundamental procedure of taking one question at a time. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. He will probably be remembered for these procedural innovations. I do not know what the Government will be remembered for. That remains to be seen. However, the right hon. Gentleman's leadership of the House will be remembered as a result of the innovations introduced in the previous procedure debate, and in this debate. There is a major gap in relation to statutory instruments, which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) has already mentioned. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has reminded us of that gap by tabling amendment (a). It represents a notable exception, because the existing procedure on statutory instruments is indefensible. It does not require improvement—it is indefensible.
Parliamentary democracy is under a certain amount of strain. It is often placed under such strain because some of the procedures in this House appear as irrelevant and archaic to those outside the House. I can often convince them, after some explanation, that they are neither irrelevant nor archaic. However, if I am ever challenged on the question of statutory instruments I shall have no defence. I shall tell them, as I shall tell the Leader of the House, that, as we have no proper procedures, there will probably be some action. That action may involve taking a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South

and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is an expert in such affairs. That action will show that Back Benchers, both old and new, will not put up with the procedure on statutory instruments being left as it is.
If the position remains as it is, the public can rightly ask, "If you cannot deal with statutory instruments, what can you deal with? The House will be open to a wide attack. As time is pressing, I shall not go into depth on the sad procedural history of the past 20 years and the decline of statutory instrument procedure.
I read a textbook written by Sir Ivor Jennings. In the 1930s he remarked in this House that an hon. Member had once threatened to put down a prayer and that that had resulted in the Government's business managers removing the instrument from the Order Paper. Report No. 538 of the Procedure Committee, dated 1970–71, states:
Your Committee accordingly recommend that non-contentious Prayers and non-contentious affirmative resolutions should be referred to a special standing committee.
One must note the word "non-contentious." That is how the door was opened. Once debate has taken place upstairs there is no proper procedure for dealing with the subject on the Floor of the House. The motion moved upstairs is irrelevant. The motion in this Chamber is automatically exempted. Perhaps the House will do something about that tonight.
Motion 7 deals with Standing Order No. 73A, which will be modified as a result of the comprehensive new procedure in relation to the EEC. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have tabled amendment (a) to the motion. It is a simple amendment. It would oblige all votes on statutory instruments which have been discussed upstairs to be dealt with at the commencement of public business. At present, we all know that, irrespective of the stupid "consider" motion upstairs, a statutory instrument is presented for the approval of the House. Because it is automatically exempted, it is put at the end of the Order Paper, possibly after discursive and uncontentious business. It is considered immediately prior to the Adjournment debate.
I could prove that such events were not the intention of the Committee that made the recommendation. Tonight, the House can remedy the situation by making it necessary for motions taken after consideration upstairs to be taken at the commencement of public business. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not present, because he might have wanted to intervene on that point. It seems a relatively easy way for the House to tighten up on these defective procedures.
I turn now to the motions relating to EEC procedure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already dealt with the three amendments selected to motion 5. I shall not go over that ground, except to emphasise to both Front Benches that there has been a virtually universal request that amendment (d) relating to an oral statement by a Minister should be accepted. It is clear that the loophole that has been given to Ministers to take decisions and to report them to the House at the earliest possible moment has been abused. Often it has not been at the earliest possible moment. It has sometimes been two or three weeks before the appearance of a written answer to the effect that approval has been given to a motion in Brussels before debate in the House. I put it to the Leader of the House that the mere fact that this procedure has been abused suggests that he should accept the amendment without equivocation.
I hope that the Leader of the House will also accept amendment (b) about the motion being related to the proposal. It is no use the House having a debate on the Adjournment about a matter in Brussels. It has been said that so far we have managed to stop that practice, but we have already had a few such debates. Standing Orders make it possible for any Government to do that, and the previous Labour Government were responsible for putting matters down on the Adjournment. Along with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, I suggest that that loophole should be stopped. If we are to have a debate, let it be on documents which can be amended so that the House of Commons can come to a definable view. If it is purely on the Adjournment, the Minister can go to Brussels and make what he will of the debate.
Motion 4, which concerns the new procedure relating to Community documents, has, I think, received universal approval by the House because no one has criticised it. That motion has been recommended by the Procedure Committee. I understand why the Government have been unable to accept all the recommendations. We wanted the Committee upstairs to be able to sit on a second day. The Government have not put that in. There may be good reasons for that. On the whole, these would be great improvements, because they would not only allow the Committee upstairs to debate a matter on an amendable motion, but such an amendment could come from any member of the Committee.
Again, there is a loophole in this new Standing Order. It is the same as that which exists in Standing Order No. 73A on statutory instruments; that is, that the substantive decision of the House is automatically exempted and can be taken at any hour. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a), line 24, after "House", insert:
on a day other than a Friday either at the commencement of public business or on the interruption of business at Ten o'clock".
That again was the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee recommended that that be one of the conditions. I hope that that gives the Government a choice: forthwith either at 3.30 pm—we already get many motions at 3.30 pm—or at 10 o'clock, when there may be a vote on another matter, or immediately afterwards when there would be no additional difficulties regarding time. If the amendment is not accepted, there will be grave disquiet about the fact that EEC business, if it goes to Committee, is finally approved by the House late at night, and we would be criticised by the people outside.
I turn to the last motion, which concerns EEC business, No. 10. It proposes to amend Standing Order No. 3 which relates to automatic exemption of certain categories of business. We know that EEC business is often taken at 10 pm. It is automatically exempted—there need be no business motion down—and we get one and a half hours. It is one and a half hours purely because when the order was first devised people thought that these EEC motions were the same


as domestic statutory instruments. At one time they were called "secondary". We have got rid of that; but the one and a half hours remains, under the 1953 rule relating to domestic statutory instruments.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will recall, as will many hon. Members present, the many rows in this Chamber about having to debate in one and a half hours sometimes very complex documents. We may get them on the Floor yet if they do not go to Committee. However, my hon. Friends and I have suggested that when we get them on the Floor, one and a half hours will be rather constricting, and we are suggesting an amendment to Standing Order No. 3 to permit EEC documents to be debated for up to two hours before the Question is automatically put. That would allow another five Back Benchers to make five-minute speeches and would allow winding-up speeches to be just that bit longer. It is only half an hour more. It is not asking for a great deal. It would be a considerable improvement, perhaps enabling matters to be thrashed out just a little more to give the Minister going to Brussels a better indication of the feeling of the House and to allow matters to be clarified when they are now sometimes rushed.
I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will agree to amendment (a) to motion 10.
Amendment (b) to motion 10 is of a rather different character. This is where, for the first time, perhaps, I do not entirely take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), who is Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. This motion concerns two matters relating to the category of documents. Some of the documents that we have had before the Scrutiny Committee have originated not from the Commission, and I believe that that is right. If matters which come from the EEC might be or are legislative, the Scrutiny Committee has to spread its net wide and we have to have a look at them. That is perfectly right. However, exempting that business on the Floor of the House is a different matter.
The new Standing Orders are to include documents of the EEC other than of the Commission, and to include documents going to "the European Council."
It is quite right that the Scrutiny Committee should have terms of reference which include those documents, but whether we should exempt from the 10 o'clock rule documents of that sort on the Floor of the House is another matter.
What is this European Council? The Standing Order, as amended, would read
to the Council of Ministers or the European Council.
That is the effect of motion 10. The European Council does not exist in the Treaty of Rome. It is a slang term for the Heads of Government meeting. That meeting started as a gleam in the eye of President Pompidou, and as an informal gathering. But according to the report of the three wise men it is a candidate for a super Council of Ministers. If we read that report, we shall find that there are moves afoot to create a super Council of Ministers, which although perhaps being a Heads of Government meeting will, in the twinkling of an eye, turn itself into a legal Council of Ministers under the treaty and agree what is in effect legislation. I agree that such documents going to such a council must be considered by the Scrutiny Committee and that its terms of reference should be wide enough to encompass such documents. However, I doubt very much whether we should exempt the documents when we come to debate them on the Floor of the House. The Council has no legislative prerogative under the Treaty of Rome or any other treaty. It is an entirely unofficial body, yet we know that in practice it is gathering to itself legislative power.
The Leader of the House may say that he wants to consider these matters further, that there may be a valid argument but that he wants to line up the Scrutiny Committee with the House. He may say that, but the House had better watch out or else the European Council, so called, will take more power from it.
Unless we consider the minutiae and practicalities of our procedures, people outside who do not believe that parliamentary democracy can work will pick at our procedures and show where we have fallen down. In that event, we shall be, quite rightly, targets of criticism. I hope that the Leader of the House and other colleagues will take note of that and that the improving amendments will be passed.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I take up briefly the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on recommendation (3), Special Standing Committees. I fail to understand what we shall achieve by implementing the recommendation. Legislation that comes before the House is often a delicate balance of compromise agreed between interested parties during the consultative processes that all Governments go through. Many points are accepted and the Government are trusted because those who are involved in the negotiations and in the legislation know that at the end of the day the Government will get the agreed compromise through because the Government usually get their business.
What shall we achieve over and above the circulation of the consultative documents, the Green Papers and finally the White Papers that accompany most legislation by having this rather odd breed of Special Standing Committee? Everyone who has been receiving the consultative documents will feel that it is his right to attend or to write to the chairman to say that he has to give evidence to the Special Standing Committee. Organisations that have been involved in the negotiations on legislation will feel left out if they have not made the final gesture of wanting to appear to give evidence to the Committee.
What will be the Minister's position when the various bodies appear before the Committee? Will he be able to ask questions? If the House decides as one of the experiments to send a Private Member's Bill to the Special Standing Committee, what will be the position of the Sponsor? Surely he should be allowed to ask questions of those who wish to give evidence to the Committee.
When the proper processes of consultation are available to the Government prior to bringing forward legislation, I do not think that there is a need for a Special Standing Committee. However, a limited case can be made out for the use of the procedure in so far as it may affect Private Members' Bills. Private Members who wish to sponsor and produce a Bill do not have consultation facilities. They do not have the facilities for getting all the interested parties together. Although I do not sup-

port the recommendation for the Government's legislation, I believe that there may be a case for its limited use for Private Members' legislation.
If we pass this motion—and I shall certainly vote against it—we shall add another legislative process to the hurdles which a Bill must already surmount. A large number of organisations outside Parliament use parlaimentary activity and the chance to influence Parliament as a way of justifying the subscriptions from their members. I dread to think of the annual reports of some of these fringe organisations outside Parliament, listing the number of Special Standing Committees to which they have made representations.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) congratulated the Leader of the House on the setting up of specialist departmentally related Committees. I am very proud of the fact that I voted against them. They have added enormously to the expenses of the House of Commons in the past year. They are a particularly expensive item, and yet we heard the hon. Member for Norwich, South actually asking that they should be given more staff.
I hope that whatever meeting the Leader of the House may have attended this morning, he accepted some very strict cash limits for House of Commons expenditure. In looking at the expenditure and expenses of the House of Commons for which he is responsible, what estimate has he made of the increase in expenditure which would be brought about by the setting of the Special Standing Committees?
I believe that in all these debates on procedure the House has an obligation to look carefully at the way in which parliamentary expenditure is getting out of hand. Consider, for example, the expense of parliamentary questions and the abuse of the Order Paper that we see every day. Hon. Members put down questions, the answers to which can generally be obtained from the Library. We should look very carefully at the waste of public money that is now incurred by a large number of our parliamentary activities. I hope that when he winds up my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give us an estimate of


the increase in expenditure which goes with many of these resolutions.

Mr. Frank Hooky: Some time during the summer the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured me that we would have another debate on procedure and I am very grateful for the fact that he has honoured that assurance. Despite the difficulties that occurred in August and again this week, he has given the House an opportunity to debate this extremely important matter of procedure and to come to a conclusion in the form of clear and definite resolutions on many important matters.
I was rather startled by the suggestion earlier in the debate by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that Select Committees should conduct their proceedings in private. Of course they have the power to do so and often they deliberate in private but I would have thought that it was completely contrary to the idea of enchancing the power of parliamentary investigation that these Committees should not deliberate in public. Part of the object of their exercise is not merely to inform the House but to contribute to the general public debate on the matter that they are currently discussing.
I wish to speak primarily about items 2 and 3 on the question of Special Standing Committees and Supply. I believe that the suggestion for special Standing Committees is a good one. It is a valuable experiment and I hope that the House will adopt it. One of the curiosities of our way of dealing with legislation in Committee is that we call these bodies "Standing Committees" when they are nothing of the sort. Select Committees can be regarded in a sense as Standing Committees because they are appointed for the whole parliamentary Session, but Standing Committees are nothing of the kind. They are simply ad hoc groups of Members thrown together, sometimes because the individual Members have a special interest in the matter under discussion and sometimes because Members are brought in to make up the numbers. But they are not in any sense Standing Committees coming together to discuss a particular area of public business over a period of years and months.
Consequently such Committees are starting from scratch. They have no common knowledge or experience, except by accident, of the matter under discussion. They are starting afresh with a complicated and often unintelligible document. I am appalled by my experience on the Finance Committee. We purport to pass legislation in which it is impossible for an average, intelligent person to understand the purport of substantial paragraphs, and yet that legislation will determine our lives and behaviour. An ad hoc group is put together to consider a complicated document. Its members usually have no previous experience of working together. They are often expected to deal with a complex subject about which many of them have no knowledge.
Forming a quasi-Select Committee at least for a short will give right hon. and lion. Members the opportunity to gain a better grasp of the issues. Although the Bill will have been discussed on Second Reading, that is no substitute for serious discussion in Committee. The proposal has a great deal to commend it.
It has been suggested that, as we possess a system of departmental Select Committees, the predigestion of legislation could be dealt with there. There are two objections to that. First, Select Committees already have a heavy responsibility. This additional requirement would overburden them. Secondly, and more importantly, the point of the exercise is that the same group of hon. Members who will scrutinise the Bill, clause by clause and sentence by sentence, should together first have the opportunity of a general study of the issues, exchanging views with the Minister present, so that they can form a better idea of the general drift of the Bill and the problems that may be thrown up in discussing its provisions.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that Select Committees should be responsible for scrutinising Bills coming from this Chamber. If implemented, would not that suggestion prevent them from pursuing their primary function of scrutinising the workings of specific Departments?
Mr. Hooley: That is what I was saying. Those who suggest that Select Committees should take over that role are overlooking the fact that they already have wide-ranging responsibilities. If they took on


that additional duty, they would be overburdened.
Before a Committee of 20 hon. Members settles down to deal with the wording of a Bill it would be helpful for them to have discussions among themselves and to take evidence. The Leader of the House is saying, in effect, that the experiment should run for only six months. He referred to a Session, but we know that the experiment will not start much before January and will run until about July. That is a very short period. The right hon. Gentleman has also said that the experiment will be confined to about three Bills. That would be a serious limitation on our ability to assess the value of the exercise.
The Leader of the House suggested that the Bills concerned should not be controversial. I should have thought that there might be a case for choosing a Bill—say the nationality Bill—that was highly controversial and would benefit from the fact that the members of the Committee had been given an opportunity to take specialist advice, call witnesses and find snags, difficulties or consequences arising out of the Bill that might not be immediately obvious.
Bills can be highly controversial without being controversial in the party political sense. There are plenty of controversial matters that cut across party lines and there could be a case for including in the experiment at least one Bill on a matter of acute public, if not party, controversy.
I accept that there must be a time limit on the scrutiny process. We could not allow a Committee to sit for six months before studying the text of a Bill, but I am not sure why its work should be confined to four sittings. It would be reasonable for us to say that a Committee must not take more than 21 days, but can sit as often as it wishes during that time. The Leader of the House is suggesting that not only should the Committees be restricted to a 28-day period, which is fair, but that they should be able to sit only four times during that period. The Committees might find it more convenient to sit five or six times and I do not see why they should not have that slightly greater freedom within the 28 days.
The right hon. Member for Down, South was agitated by the provisions in paragraph (4) of motion 3. I find them

a little curious. Paragraph (4) (a) is reasonable in providing that a quasi Report stage should be held to consider amendments arising from undertakings given by Ministers during the sittings of the Committee. That would save a good deal of time on the Floor of the House. However, I do not understand paragraph (4) (b) which refers to amendments that:
are consequent upon previous decisions of the committee".
The only way that a Committee can make decisions is to approve, reject or amend the clauses of the Bill. I am not clear how it can go back on such decisions at a quasi Report stage. The Committee will already have expressed its opinion on those issues.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's conundrum is that these would be what we normally term consequential amendments, which become necessary because of previous amendments that have been inserted.

Mr. Hooley: I should have thought that if amendments were drafted properly, consequential amendments would have been incorporated in the original drafting.
I am not sure what is meant by the reference in paragraph (4)(c) to amendments that:
have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings.
If amendments were necessary during the Committee proceedings, that fact would presumably have been expressed in amendments that the Committee would have debated and decided on. If the amendments are merely consequential, perhaps the word "consequential" should have been included in the motion. I find that proposition curious, although it is an interesting variation on our existing procedures. The suggestion of a system of general scrutiny of the Bill before the actual text is considered is attractive and useful. I hope that the House will adopt it.
I shall not say anything about the European Community legislation. That has been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I shall fully support the amendments to which my name is attached. If they are not acceptable to the Government, I shall vote for them.
I want to make some remarks about the question of Supply. I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that this is a fundamental and basic weakness of the procedures of the House. We do not control expenditure. We do not control the Government's demands for expenditure nor do we scrutinise it effectively. The Government under Mr. Attlee from 1945 to 1951 was rightly famous for a great many things and will go down in history as a great Government. However, one of the matters for which it was notorious was the fact that it was able to manufacture an atomic bomb without the House of Commons being given any clue that the matter was under way and, presumably, having nothing to say about the appropriation of the necessary funds for carrying out this policy.
Defence in general and nuclear weapons in particular are becoming a matter of nation-wide controversy. I have no intention of going into that controversy except to say that it will turn, in the end, to a considerable extent, on the financial capacity of the nation to pay for the manufacture and installation and so forth of these weapons.
It would be absurd if the House of Commons was unable, through its existing procedures, not merely to debate the general policy issues of defence and nuclear weapons, which, obviously, it can, but to deal with the more detailed appropriation of the enormous sums—£5 billion for one weapon and £5 billion for another—involved in these defence decisions. This is more important because when we look back we know very well that weapons like Blue Streak and TSR2 were not eventually abandoned on some high grounds of policy but primarily because the Government of the day decided that they could not afford them.
I believe that the House could reach decisions on some of these weapon systems after considering whether it is reasonable that taxes that our constituents pay should be expended on his form of weaponry or whether equal sums should not be expended on some different type of equipment that may be regarded as necessary to the defence of the country.
The setting up of this Committee to study the whole question of Supply, control of expenditure and appropriations, is

extremely important. I hope that it will get on with its business although I would not suggest the rush, proposed by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who wanted a report within six months. That would be undesirable. One would certainly expect something to emerge in 12 or 18 months. It is a complicated matter and one of fundamental importance.
I echo the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about the inclusion of the European Council as a body in motion 10 of the proposed Standing Orders. The European Council has no constitutional standing in the Treaty of Rome. We should not take cognisance of it in terms of our Standing Orders and our business arrangements. We might have to debate the subjects that it discusses from time to time but we should not purport to acknowledge its existence in this fashion.
I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy's persistence in these procedural matters. He did a fine job on the special departmental Select Committees. He has done a good job again in pursuing the matter and bringing forward many more procedural matters which the House should debate and upon which it should make decisions.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I have only a limited number of comments which I want to make on the wide spectrum of matters before us today. The first refers to the substantive amendment to the first procedural motion. Here, slipped into a long amendment covering two and a half pages and side-titled
Instruments subject to the affirmative procedure
is paragraph (8) which is not to do with instruments but with Church of England matters.
These are matters of a distinctly different kind. It would have been more fortunate if attention had been drawn to this, first on the Notice Paper and then on the Order Paper, by a side heading pointing out that the instruments subject to the affirmative procedure are really terminated with paragraph (7) and that paragraph (8) deals with something entirely different.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English),


in whose name this worthy amendment stands, the arguments for using the same procedure for a Church of England matter are entirely different from the arguments for using this projected procedure for statutory instruments, whether of the affirmative or negative resolution kind.
Hon. Members who have been present regularly at debates in the House on Church of England matters will know as a fact that generally the same hon. Members are not members of the Statutory Instruments Committee. This I give not as an opinion but as an ascertainable fact. Anybody who cares to read through Hansard debates on Church of England matters and to compare them with reports of the Statutory Instruments Committee, will find that those hon. Members who wish to participate and vote on Church of England matters do not correspond with the membership of the relevant Committee.
Unfortunately, under paragraph (8) of the very long, and I think admirable, amendment to my right hon. Friend's first procedural motion, the decision whether to send a measure to a Statutory Instruments Committee will be taken by the House forthwith without debate. I should have been much happier if the chair had been able to agree to have a separate vote on paragraph (8) of this proposed new standing order—because it is of a completely different genre from the half of the amendment which precedes it and the half which comes after it—instead of having to take two different types of legislative functions and treating them as if they were the same.
May I remark in parenthesis that a few years ago I wrote to the then very distinguished Clerk of the House, Sir Richard Barlas, and asked him whether in his opinion the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee were proceedings in Parliament. He wrote back to me giving me his considered opinion that they were not but added that the distinguished Counsel to Mr. Speaker, Sir Robert Speed, took the opposite view, that they were proceedings in Parliament.
I may be misreporting both of them. It may have been that Sir Richard took the view that they were, and Sir Robert took the view that they were not. I should not wish to be guilty of misattribution. My point is that there was a disagreement

between an extremely distinguished Clerk of the House and an extremely distinguished Counsel to Mr. Speaker as to whether the proceedings on Church of England measures in the Ecclesiastical Committee—to which the House has always attached great weight when they come on to the Floor—were proceedings in Parliament. Hon. Members will realise that there are implications for privilege and the law of defamation that are relevant to that.

Mr. Paul Dean: I have been following my hon. Friend's arguments with great interest. Will he help us by saying whether the views that he had from certain distinguished people were before the new Church of England synodical government arrangements? I think that that is relevant to his argument and might help to guide the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish that I could answer that question with certainty, but I cannot. It was three or four years ago. I doubt that the new arrangements have altered the status because they are still based on the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. My guess is that the status is not affected by the new arrangements for the constitution of the Church Assembly. I was referring not to the Church Assembly but to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I turn to the new and rather quaintly named special Standing Committees. There is one potential conundrum that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, namely: can a member of the Committee give evidence to the Committee? Apparently, the Committee would contain a Minister in the same way as normal Standing Committees. Yet many of the questions to which the Committee will want answers presumably would appropriately come from the Minister in charge of the Bill. I apologise for being absent for one and a half hours from the debate, because the point may have been raised already.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is in the report.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not a question of being in the report. We have a motion, and the question is what would be the implication of that motion on this specific point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend clearly wants an ex cathedra statement, and I shall give it to him when I reply.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. When we read the Select Committee report and the very scholarly contribution by the last Clerk of the House on the History of the right to question Members, we discover that the apparently ex cathedra statement in "Erskine May" that Select Committees cannot require Members to attend and give evidence is not well based. It is typical of some of the statements that appear in "Erskine May" to which a spurious authority is attributed.
A member of the Committee can be invited by the Committee to give evidence if he is already a member of the Committee. But if he is not a member of the Committee I cannot help but note that this resolution does not empower the Committee, as it could have done, to send for Members. The established tradition is that the power to send for persons and papers does not entitle a Committee to send for a Member of either House. Returning to my conundrum, if the Member that a Committee wishes to summon is already a member of the Committee, can it require him to give evidence? I think that that conundrum needs sorting out.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in any Government is a member of the Public Accounts Committee? He can sit as a full Member of the Select Committee both to inquire into evidence before the Committee and to give evidence to it. On occasion he fulfils both roles. When he gives evidence the other members can question him. Therefore, what is proposed is by no means novel. There is well-established practice for it already in the PAC.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful for that advice. I think it would be better, however, if, when we are drawing up the new Standing Order for the so-called Special Standing Committee we should explicitly give it the power to send for Members of this House if we intend that it should have that power rather than that it should rely on anecdotal similarities to the Public Accounts Committee. Let us, in so far as we can, in drawing up new Standing Orders make

explicit those things that need to be explicit rather than making them implicit and subject to disagreement and misunderstanding.
This might mean, if my right hon. Friend agrees with me, that as well as telling us that Ministers and any other Member of this House can be summoned by such a Committee to give evidence, he might feel on a subsequent day—obviously am amendment could not be put forward at this stage—that we should amend the Standing Order on a procedural motion to make the power absolutely explicit.

Mr. George Cunningham: The House has once again today enjoyed a sort of love-in with the Leader of the House on this second tranche of procedural reform initiated by the Procedure Committee. I join in the congratulations that have been extended to him by others for having this second bite at the cherry. When we have finished this second bite we shall have dealt with motions in which the right hon. Gentleman has already sown the seeds of the third major bite. I know that we have done a few other things in between. The seeds of the third main tranche are being sown by the setting up of a new Procedure Committee to deal with the question of Supply.
Apart from the detailed procedural matters that have formed the main part of the discussions today, references have been made by several hon. Members—notably by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean)—to the relationship between the attitudes of Members—their willingness to vote a certain way—and procedural habits. He suggested that it was the function of the Government to take decisions and the function of the House of Commons to scrutinise those decisions. That is infinitely too modest a way of putting it for my liking. The function of the House of Commons is to receive proposals from the Government, to consider those proposals, and, where the House disagrees with them, to substitute its own judgment for that of the Government. That should apply to legislation, to expenditure matters and to all other matters that come before the House.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what I am suggesting may


be modest but that it might be rather better than what we have achieved in practice over the past 10 or 20 years?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I made the remark I did because I think that the hon. Gentleman and also the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) were, in some of their remarks, looking for procedural solutions to problems which are not procedural in nature.
Where Members wish to exercise power against the Government they have their weapon—the vote. It is the only thing that the electorate gives them—the power to vote in this House—and the only thing that they need. Procedural changes are important, but they are essentially secondary. It is important that Members should exercise their judgment and be prepared to permit their vote to follow that judgment. Over the last decade there has been a significant change in the habits of the House in that respect, and it is always the party in power that has to exercise that responsibility particularly. Many Labour Members have been, and will be, looking with great care to Conservative Back Benchers during this Parliament to see whether they are prepared to carry on the traditions that have been established, first by the Conservatives in the beginning of the 1970s and then by the Labour Back Benchers during 1974–79.
I regard the most important proposal as that on the new Special Standing Committees, and I shall deal with it last. With regard to the EEC document changes that are proposed, there has been intense dissatisfaction for a long time with the method in which EEC documents are considered in this House. Basically it has been felt that the merits should be debated and then motions passed relating explicitly to the merits. Motions should be amendable, and enough time should be available for a proper discussion of these matters with time available on the Floor of the House, if necessary, to follow them up. I have no doubt that any hon. Members feel that the proposals before use do not go far enough in achieving those objectives, but they go much further than the present position and they should be strongly welcomed.
I turn now to the proposal on the declaratory resolution about the behaviour of Ministers in the Council of Ministers in the Community before any debate

has taken place in this House. Again, there is much back history on the matter which has been rehearsed today. The wish of the House is clear. Except in extremely rare conditions, if then, no Minister should commit himself in the Council of Ministers until a matter that has been recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to be debated has been debated on the Floor of the House.
We can all envisage circumstances in which there is a need for a loophole. But if that loophole were to be used frequently it would be highly undesirable. A loophole that perhaps has to be used every two or three years may be bearable if the reasons are adequate. But any escape from this provision more frequent than that would be extremely undesirable.
I now turn to the proposals about statutory instruments which are not before us—at least not in the name of the Government. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), with all his experience of statutory instruments, said how unsatisfactory he believes the present arrangements for scrutiny are. The House may like to consider that the arrangements for keeping an eye on subordinate legislation that does not even take the form of a statutory instrument are even worse. Frequently we permit a Minister to make a scheme of arrangement in a Bill or to issue directions which do not need to be discussed again by the House in any form, and the text of which is impossible to find in any series of documents. Subordinate legislation of that kind is looked after worst by the House.
With regard to the statutory instruments, it is perhaps a pity, certainly in the eyes of many hon. Members, that the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the procedure now recommended for EEC documents should be applied more or less as that for statutory instruments. I believe, and other hon. Members believe, that the Leader of the House would have been willing to adopt the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on this matter and that others were unwilling to do so. If the House tonight exercises its judgment and decides to adopt the proposals contained in the Procedure Committee report, I do not think that any great disaster will occur, whether for the


House or for the running of the Government's business in the House.
As I said, the Leader of the House has sown the seeds of another important advance in the running of the affairs of the House by tabling the motion to set up a new Procedure Committee to deal exclusively with the matter of Supply. There is great dissatisfaction in the House—there has been for a long time, but it has been expressed more in the last year or two—over the fact that we vote millions, nay billions. of pounds on the nod. However, the scrutiny of that expenditure which does not take place on the Floor of the House does not take place in Committee upstairs either. Supply Days are rightly used for a purpose which does not now much relate to Supply. The Expenditure Committee, when it existed, did not do very much of a job on the scrutiny of proposals for expenditure. I am hopeful that the new Select Committees will not only produce studies on individual subjects but will also rigorously scrutinise the activities of Government Departments and the expenditure implied in those activities.
If they are to do so, they will probably have to run on twin tracks, spending one day a week doing their general studies and another day addressing themselves to expenditure control. I very much hope that members of the new family of Select Committees will try to do both jobs. If the new Select Committees do not do the expenditure job, we shall have to recreate something like the old Expenditure Committee, with all the disadvantages which that arrangement had. I share the groans expressed at that possibility, but someone must do the detailed work on the Estimates, and preferably it is up to the new Select Committees to do it. If they do not, we shall have to have a different method of doing so.

Mr. English: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, one of our problems is not even related to the Procedure Committee. At present, work is going on to try to make the Estimates comprehensible in the manner referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). That is necessary, because I do not think that any hon. Member, even professionally qualified accountants, actually understands the Estimates that are put before the House.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree with that, and no doubt the new Committee will address itself to that matter. In the meantime, during the two years that the new Committee will be producing its report, it is important that the new family of Select Committees address themselves to this question.
Another point raised was whether, in addition to this new Committee, we need a normal Sessional Procedure Committee. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) recommended that we should do so. My own preference is that we should permit the new Committee also to take care of small procedural matters that arise from time to time. At Question Time, hon. Members frequently raise some grouse or other, and it will be said—sometimes from the Chair—that this is a matter which should be looked at by the Procedure Committee. If we have a Procedure Committee, even one that is engaged on a long-term and important study, I think that it is able to squeeze in. in the occasional days—without interrupting its general work—consideration of minor matters. Whether by that device or by the creation of a separate Procedure Committee, we need to have some means of clearing away these occasional procedural problems that arise so that we do not get a whole backlog of matters that need looking at, as we have sometimes done in the past.
I turn to what the report calls the Public Bill Committee procedure. I entirely agree with those who have said that the proposal we made for a second run in Standing Committees, to take care of undertakings given by Ministers and to take care of consequential amendments previously adopted, is an experiment that does not only apply—and should not be made only to apply—to the new Special Standing Committees. The Government are only suggesting that the new Special Standing Committees should deal with only a handful of Bills, so they are not a sufficient base for a proper experiment on this other devise. In the Procedure Committee report, we did not at all suggest that this second run-over should apply only to the new kind of Standing Committee. We suggested that it should apply to Public Bill Committees, as we called them, and to other Standing Committees.
We come, finally, to the most important recommendation before us, namely, that for the Special Standing Committees. This is, I think, the second tranche of what will be looked back upon as the reforms of this House of the years 1979–80. I do not share the misgivings which many Members have expressed about this new system. I take a particular interest in it.
I remember putting forward this idea to the then normal Procedure Committee in 1971, when it fell like a pebble in a tar barrel and was never heard of again. When we were first taking evidence in the Procedure Committee in 1976, I put the idea to the witnesses who came before us and was amazed to find that it was looked upon very favourably, and the bandwagon for this ran. Now, to my great surprise, we have the proposal before us, and there has been a very favourable response to the idea. [Interruption.] I say that there has been a very favourable response. I do not say that everyone is in favour of it.
We all know the difficulties of the present Standing Committee procedure. I do not share the criticisms of the Standing Committee as an instrument which have been expressed by some Members. I think that the Standing Committee combines the formality of proposing precise amendments, of an argument for and against, with the enormous advantage of being able to make more than one speech on the question. It combines that with the slightly greater willingness of Members to address themselves to the issue, and to stay in the debate long enough to hear the issue debated, which characterises Standing Committee as against the Floor of the House. That is the good thing about Standing Committees.
The bad thing we have all experienced. It is that in that room there is an electrical force, which is the hunger for information of the members of the Committee. In the corner of the room there is another electrical force, the Whitehall officials, with I will not say all the information but an awful lot of information. Between these two forces there is the narrow filament of the Minister's mind, and that inevitably results in a fuse. What we are suggesting is that there should be some direct communication between those two corners, as it were, of the room.
May I remind Members that we also recommended—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooky) should remember this—that the new Special Standing Committees—and, indeed, I think we said all Committees—should include among their members for any Bill on a certain subject one or two members of the Select Committee covering that subject area. That does not do as much as my hon. Friend is asking for in referring legislation to Select Committees, but we were trying to make some bridge between the continuity and expertise which should exist in the subject Committees and the retention of ad hoc Committees for the consideration of Bills.
This will, I think, be a new and valuable facility for Members to use or abuse—and no doubt by some Members and on some Bills it will be abused. But the procedure is valuable in itself and we must just trust that Members will use it properly rather than abuse it. As some have said, it will be a channel for organisations outside the House to present their views to the House. It will be experimental, and if it is to be a successful and meaningful experiment, sufficient Bills and a sufficient variety of Bills must be referred to the system. It can then be properly tested.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say something more about the chairmanship of the new Standing Committees. I am not sure that his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was clear. Are we to understand that the Chairman will be, as the Committee recommended, a neutral chairman, who has been drawn from the panel of chairmen? Are we to understand that this same person—subject to illness and so on—will chair the evidence-taking sessions, and clause by clause consideration of the Bill?
The hon. Member for Grantham complained that we were being far too restrictive in limiting to three sittings the number of days that the Committee could devote to the taking of evidence. In my mind as a member of the Procedure Committee, and in the minds of many others, the governing principle was that we should spread the thin end of a lot of wedges about the place. This is the thin end of the second wedge. We all know this House. If you feed too much into its mouth, it will spit it out. We wanted


to get the thing adopted and so we have put it before the House in a modest way. Once it has been accepted we shall never get rid of it. That is one of the principles that caused us to restrict the number of sittings.
The proposals will form an extremely valuable addition to the armoury of hon. Members if they use them properly. Once again, I congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing forward proposals that will be unpopular with some of his colleagues, and with some of mine.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for his most generous tribute and for his courage in making that tribute in the presence of his colleagues. At least I have disposed of mine. I am grateful for the various tributes that right hon. and hon. Members have paid. I understand that there was one dissentient voice, but I was out of the Chamber and I did not hear it. There is always a dissentient voice. There was even a dissentient voice at the Conservative Party conference. It is part of the cast.
I turn to some of the technical points that have been raised and that are all important. There are many motions and amendments, and I shall have to deal with them as briefly as possible. I am glad to have the opportunity of expanding on what I said to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about the chairmanship of the Committee. It is intended that there should be two Chairmen. The first Chairman of the Committee, when it is sitting as a Select Committee, will be appointed by Mr. Speaker. It will be possible to appoint any hon. Member, apart from a Minister. I imagine that, normally, the Chairman of the Committee that is sitting in Select Committee form will come either from the Chairmen's Panel, or from among the Select Committee Chairmen. It will be possible to appoint any hon. Member. The important distinction is that that Chairman at that stage will be different from the Chairman of the Standing Committee at that stage.
That suggestion came from the Chairmen's Panel, which was naturally concerned that the impartiality of the Chair-

man of the Standing Committee should be protected. The Chairman of the Committee in its Select Committee form would carry out more of an inquisitorial than a balancing role. That was the reason why that was put forward. It can be argued that it is not necessary, but that is the factual situation and the reasoning behind it.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South asked what constituted a controversial Bill and wanted a criterion. I cannot give him such a criterion. What is meant is not that the Bill should be completely anodyne, but that it should not be controversial in the party political sense. If it is the subject of cross-party warfare, it will not be suitable at any rate, for this experimental stage. That would not rule out a controversial Bill. For example, the nationality Bill may prove controversial in certain aspects, but it would be controversial within the parties rather than across the Floor of the House. I cannot give a further definition than that. It is the old problem of being able to recognise an elephant when one sees it but not being able to define it.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) tabled a number of amendments, most of which have been selected, and I should deal with them. I turn first to motion No. 4, amendment (a), in line 24, after "House", insert
on a day other than a Friday either at the commencement of public business or on the interruption of business at Ten o'clock".
The purpose of the changes that we have proposed to the Standing Orders has been to improve scrutiny in the Standing Committee by giving more time and taking debates on motions which can be amended by any Member, not only an appointed Member of the Committee. The amendment would not aid such scrutiny, and I see no reason to depart from the established procedure at this stage.
Turning to motion No. 5, amendment (a) was not selected, so I need not answer that point. The effect of amendment (b) would be that all debates on Community documents would have to take place on the basis of a "take note" motion and motions for the Adjournment could not be used.

Mr. Beith: It does not have to be a "take note" motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Very well. I cannot recommend acceptance of that amendment, which goes further than the Procedure Committee recommendation that debates should normally take place on a substantive motion. it is our practice for debates on Community documents to take place on expanded "take note" motions which are amendable. All documents which are given further consideration by the House are debated on the basis of such a motion, except possibly where the Scrutiny Committee suggests that a document might be listed as relevant to a general debate.

Mr. Jay: rose——

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I really cannot give way. I have many points to get through. But I should be happy to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman on further points.
Amendment (c) to motion No. 5, proposed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and others, would bind the Government to an unrealistic commitment. Wherever possible the House should have the opportunity to debate a document recommended to it by the Scrutiny Committee. But, of course, no Government can foresee sudden events which in the national interest require instant decision. Such occasions should, however, be rare. I do not see that there is any danger of that being abused. Therefore, I recommend that that amendment, too, be rejected.
I take the same attitude to amendment (d) to motion 5.

Mr. Spearing: Was the right hon. Gentleman here for the debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I was. I have been in the House throughout except for three-quarters of an hour, when I went out for—I shall not go into that. In that very brief absence, a very full note was taken of what was said.
I note the wish expressed in the proposed amendment by the Members who have supported it. The occasions when oral statements are required are very rare. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. But when such occasions occur, oral statements are generally made. I believe that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive.
With regard to the different circumstances from the circumstances envisiged by this amendment, I have made it clear to the various Ministers concerned that in general one would wish statements to be made orally. But I cannot force
Ministers to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "The House can."] The House can do so. Good. The House, then, must force the Minister. I do my best, but in the end I can only try to persuade Ministers. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has quite a vigourous character, cannot get a Minister here when a Minister should be here, I shall be very surprised.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentlman is so keen, as he is often protesting, to to give this House more control over legislation, why is he averse to the House deciding that a Minister must at least make an oral statement when one is necessary?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not averse to that. I think that it is the Scottish verdict of not proven. I do not think that the case for compulsion has yet been established. Clearly, if Ministers will not co-operate with the House, the House has its remedies. Ultimately, the House always enforces its will. But I have yet to see this case made out. Meanwhile, fait compulsion, we can rely on the activities of the hon. Member for Newham, South.
The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a number of important points. He was anxious about the role that the Select Committees are playing. I do not have control over them and their terms of reference. They decide what to do, whether they investigate individual items—which was suggested by another hon. Member to be undesirable—or whether they look at the whole scope of a Department. In a literal sense, they are Frankenstein monsters and have a life of their own. They cannot be controlled in that sense by me. But we must see how they develop.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made his second point when referring to recommendation (10) of the Procedure Committee, to the effect that a similar procedure to that for Scotland should be applied to Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman must let me finish. Recommendation (10) states:
The proposals of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation relating to an expedited procedure for bills to re-enact for Scotland only the provisions of United Kingdom Acts should be implemented; a similar procedure should be applied in respect of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you. I am afraid that I cannot be very helpful towards the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. We still have the matter under review, but in the Government's judgment the case for a new procedure has not so far been established. I am aware of the two Committees.
Perhaps I may deal with the point about the extra Sessional Committee. I have noted that point and I shall consider it carefully. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about extending the terms of reference of the Committee. I want the Committee to concentrate on vital work and not to be distracted by other matters. My remarks about the additional Sessional Committee apply to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker).
I find it difficult to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on a theoretical level. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my opening remarks about delegated legislation. We must not impose too much work on hon. Members. If it were merely an exercise in abstraction, I do not think that his argument could be answered, or the argument that has been adduced by other hon. Members.
I take it that the first three matters raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) support what I said about the amendments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I shall consider the fourth point further but I cannot accede to it.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about single issues and the general work of a Department. Again, that is a matter for the Select Committees. I confirm, for my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), that the term "European legis-

lation" contained in motion 5 covers all European Community instruments with legislative effect, whether direct or indirect.
My reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is the same as my reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have sympathy with the principle which lies behind his amendment, but for practical reasons I cannot accept it. However, if the House decides that it should be accepted, that will be a matter for the House. If that happens, we shall do what we can to implement the amendment.
We shall be debating recommendation (47) tomorrow. I put the item on the Order Paper specially to placate the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I hope that it will be possible for us to dispose of recommendations (47) and (48) tomorrow with the usually happily given co-operation of the hon. Gentleman. Recommendation (48) seeks to compel Select Committees to publish proceedings in sub-committees. I do not think that we should take the power to compel them to do so. I understand that they have the power already. There may be arguments about that. That is an issue that we can consider again if it transpires that they do not have that power.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his kind remarks. We have three Sessions because that is precisely the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. In fact, there are four Sessions, the first Session being formal. There are three effective Sessions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) asked about a breakdown of costs. We do not have such a breakdown. A general answer is that we get good value for money in the general running of Parliament. We keep a constant check on expenditure. It is much cheaper to run the House of Commons than to run most Government Departments. We are keeping a close eye on any additional expense.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I shall not follow him into the purlieus of the Church of England, but I can give him a reply. He asked whether a member of the Committee could give evidence to a Committee.
The answer is "Yes", but the Committee canot compel him to do so. That is an ex cathedra statement or an ex scatola statement as it is backed up by official advice.

May I conclude——

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Question on the motion relating to Procedure (No. 1)

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of recommendations (4) to (30) and (66) to (70) of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1977–78.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining motions relating to procedure, and the motions relating to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of

Bills), Special Standing Committees, Standing Committee on European Community Documents, European Community Legislation, Procedure (Supply). Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.), Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees), Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees), and Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

STANDING OR DER No. 40 (COMMITTAL OF BILLS)

Ordered,

That, until the end of the next session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have effect as if there were inserted, in line 9, after the word 'committee', the words, 'or to a special standing committtee', and in line 12, after the word Member, the words, 'or in the case of a motion to commit a bill to a special standing committee by a Minister of the Crown.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEES

Motion made, and Question put.

That—
(1) A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed under the provisions of Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days, excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days, from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records and to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than two and a half hours each. The first such sitting shall be in private and the remainder, which shall be for the purpose of hearing oral evidence, shall be in public. The oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.
(2) For the sittings referred to in paragraph (1) of this Order, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61(1) (Chairmen of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 65(1) (Procedure in standing committees)—

(i) Mr. Speaker shall appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of a special standing committee;
(ii) The chairman shall be included in calculating the quorum of the committee.

(3) When a special standing committee has completed consideration of a Bill, the chairman shall put the question, That I do report the Bill to the House unless a Minister of the Crown shall move 'That the Committee do

now adjourn'. It such a motion is made, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of standing committees), may be decided after One o'clock.

(4) If the question is agreed to, the committee shall meet again on the day and at the hour named by the chairman to consider any amendments which may be moved by a Minister of the Crown which

(a) arise from undertakings given by Ministers of the Crown during previous sittings of the committee;
(b) are consequent upon previous decisions of the committee;
(c) have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings.

(5) If the proceedings have not been concluded before the end of two and a half hours the Chairman shall interrupt them and put the question 'That I do report the Bill to the House', unless on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown, on which the question shall be put forthwith, the Committee agree that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, or that the debate be adjourned.

(6) The day and hour of any further sitting shall be named by the chairman, and the provisions of paragraph (5) shall apply thereto.

(7) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the Standing Orders relating to standing committees shall apply to any special standing committee.

That this be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next session of Parliament.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

The House divided Ayes 141, Noes 11.

Division No. 482
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Faith, Mrs Shelia
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard


Best, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Blackburn, John
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brinton, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Haynes, Frank
Moore, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John
Morgan, Geraint


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)


Cope, John
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Needham, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Palmer, Arthur


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Parris, Matthew


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Kershaw, Anthony
Penhaligon, David


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


English, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)




Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Raison, Timothy
Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Raymond


Rhodes James, Robert
Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tebbit, Norman
Woolmer, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)



St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Waddington, David
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John
Mr. Antony Berry


Spearing, Nigel






NOES


Body, Richard
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)



George, Bruce
Proctor, K Harvey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Mr. Marcus Kimball and


Murphy, Christopher
Wheeler, John
Mr. David Crouch

Question accordingly agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—
(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called standing committees on European Community documents, for the consideration of European Community documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where notice has been given of a motion relating to a European Community document, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the said document be referred to such a committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not less than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objections thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(4) Each committee shall consider each such document referred to it on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown to which amendments may be moved, and the chairman shall interrupt proceedings, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. Thereafter, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (2) (Meetings of Standing Committees), he shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the question on any other amendments selected by the Chair which may be moved;
(c) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The committee shall thereupon report the document to the House, together with any resolution to which they have come, without any further question being put.

(5) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any document reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by him which may be moved;
(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

That this be a Standing Order of the House.—
[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Does the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) wish to move his amendment?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or
(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Jay: I beg to move amendment (b), after second 'consideration', insert
'on a motion relating to that proposal.'

Division No. 483]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Howells, Geraint
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Beith, A. J.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silverman, Julius


Body, Richard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spearing, Nigel


Brinton, Tim
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Marlow, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Flaxton, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Molyneaux, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Colvin, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Watson, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Murphy, Christopher
Wells. Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Deakins, Eric
Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Needham, Richard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Parris, Matthew



English, Michael
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Bruce
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Hawksley, Warren
Proctor, K Harvey
Mr. Frank Haynes




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Sir Ian


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Rhodes James, Robert


Britian, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill
Speller, Tony


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Stevens, Martin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Nell
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Whitney, Raymond


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wickenden, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Vector
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)



Goodhart, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael
Mr Spencer Le Marchant and


Gray, Hamish
Nott, Rt Hon John
Mr. Anthony Berry


Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move amendment (c), in subparagraph (a), leave out from 'withheld' to end of motion.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 99.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 117.

Farris, Matthew
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Powell, Et Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)



Proctor, K Harvey
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Spearing, Nigel
Wheeler, John
Mr. Frank Haynes




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Beith, A. J.
Heddle, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Penhargon, David


Best, Keith
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Blackburn, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pyre, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Howells, Geraint
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, Flt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Stevens, Martin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Warren, Kenneth


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wickenden, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morgan, Geraint



Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian
Needham, Richard
Mr. David Waddington and


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Peter Brooke


Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move amendment (d), at end add 'by an oral statement'.

Division No. 485]
AYES
[10.35 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Haynes, Frank
Fenhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Powell, Rt Hon
Enoch (S Down)


Best, Keith
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K Harvey


Blackburn, John
Hooley, Frank
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Body, Richard
Howells, Geraint
Silverman, Julius


Brinton, Tim
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Colvin, Michael
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Lyell, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Crouch, David
McKay, Allen (Pentstone)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Marlow, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Deakins, Eric
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Morgan, Geraint



Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Needham, Richard
Mr. John Maxton


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Fage, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Britian, Leon
Cope, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Peter
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Durant, Tony

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 93.

English, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Speed, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol
Speller, Tony


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John
Waddington, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Wickenden, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy
Mr. John Wakeham and


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Mr. Peter Brooke


Kimball, Marcus

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or
(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.) be amended as follows:


Line 5, leave out from 'instruments' to 'referred' in line 7.


Line 26, leave out from 'approved' to end of line 28.


Line 32, leave out 'or commission document'.


Line 40, leave out 'or commission document'.


Line 43, leave out '(or commission document)'.


Line 53, leave out 'or commission document'.


Line 57, leave out '3(ii) or 3(iii)' and insert 'or 3(ii)'.


Line 59, leave out 'or commission document'.


Line 62, leave out from 'thereon' to end of line 65.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wish to move his amendment?

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 8, at end insert—

Division No. 486]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Body, Richard
Haynes, Frank
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Murphy, Christopher


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


English, Michael
Loveridge, John
Parris, Matthew

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House.

Resolved,

That a Select Committee should be appointed at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament to examine the House's present procedure for considering and voting on the Government's requests for Supply, and to make recommendations.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

STANDING ORDER No. 73A (STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

'Line 56, after "made", insert "at the commencement of public business".

Leave out lines 66 to 68.'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 96.

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Deiek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Spearing, Nigel
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Mr. Frank Hooter and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John
Mr. A. J. Beith




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)
Gray, Hamish
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Percival, Sir Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Best, Keith
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Blackburn, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Blaker, Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speller, Tony


Colvin, Michael
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradting Thomas, J.


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mather, Carol
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Durant, Tony
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitney, Raymond


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Wickenden, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moore, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Needham, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Fox, Marcus
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. John Wakeham and


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Peter Brooke


Goodhart, Philip
Nott, Rt Hon John
Mr. Peter Brooke


Gow, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.) be amended as follows:
Line 5, leave out from 'instruments' to 'referred' in line 7.
Line 26, leave out from 'approved' to end of line 28.
Line 32, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 40, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 43, leave out '(or commission document)'.
Line 53, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 57, leave out '3(ii) or 3(iii)' and insert or 3(ii)'.
Line 59, leave out 'or commission document'.

Line 62, leave out from 'thereon' to end of line 65.

STANDING ORDER No. 62 (NOMINATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) be amended as follows:
Line 12, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

STANDING ORDER NO. 60 (CONSTITUTION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) be amended as follows: Line 8, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.)

STANDING ORDER NO. 3 (EXEMPTED BUSINESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) be Emended as follows:
Line 18, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community' .
Line 49, leave out from 'No' to 'documents' in line 50 and insert (Standing Committee on European Community documents) "European Community'.
Line 52, leave out Economic Community and insert 'Communities'.
Line 53, leave out 'secondary'.
Line 54, leave out by the Commission'.
Line 55, at end insert or to the European Council whether or not such documents originate from the Commission'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) wish to move amendment (a)?

Mr. Spearing: Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move amendment (b)?

Mr. Spearing: Not moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the Order of the House, we now move to the second group of motions, the first of which is motion 11. The Question is as on the Order Paper——

Mr. English: rose ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take motions 11 to 18 together.

Mr. English: No.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that motions 11 to 18 are to be debated together.

Mr. English: I was hoping that the Leader of the House would wish to explain the motions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would it be for the convenience of the House if we took them separately? They do not have all that much in common.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am the servant of the House. If it is the wish of the House to take them separately, so be it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am the only common factor.

SUPPLY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply) be amended, as follows:
Line 68, leave out 'and the Expenditure Committee'.
Line 162, leave out paragraph (12).
This is a technical amendment that is linked with the proposed amendment of Standing Order No. 32. Its purpose is to enable the special provisions for putting the Question on amendments to Opposition substantive motions on Supply days to be gathered together in one place. The new provisions were agreed to by the House on 31 October 1979. They follow recommendations made in the third report from the Select Committee on Procedure, the Sessional Committee, Session 1976 to 1977. The deletion of "and the Expenditure Committee" is purely a drafting amendment as the Expenditure Committee is no longer with us.

Question put and agreed to.

QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENTS

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amendments) be amended, as follows:
Line 11, after 'supply)' insert '(a)'.
Line 14, after 'insert', insert '(or add)'.
Line 18, after 'there', insert 'inserted (or
Line 18, at end add—
'(b) if such amendment involves leaving out all the effective words of the motion Mr. Speaker shall, after the amendment has been disposed of forthwith declare the main question (as amended or not as the case may be) to be agreed to.'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 41 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 8, leave out 'or Sunday' and insert 'Sunday or bank holiday'—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

11 pm

Mr. St. John-Stevas: At present, Standing Order No. 41 implies that amendments can be handed in to the Public Bill Office on any bank holiday—for example, the May Day bank holiday—other than a Saturday or a Sunday, which immediately precedes the day on which the House resumes after an Adjournment of more than one day. However, House staff, including printing staff, like hon. Members, are not expected to work on bank holidays. The amendment recognises that and precludes the handing in of amendments on a bank holiday.

Question put and agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MR. SPEAKER

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 105 (Deputy Speaker) be amended, as follows:
Line, 7 after 'absence' insert 'or the absence by leave of the House',
Line 26, after 'absence', insert 'or the absence by leave of the House'.
Line 32, after 'absence', insert 'or the absence by leave of the House'.—[Mr. St. John Stevas.]

Mr. St. John Stevas: This amendment arises out of an early-day motion which was tabled last March by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We have had correspondence on the matter.
At present, Standing Order No. 105 only provides for the House to be informed by the Clerk at the Table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means or the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. The amendment would provide for leave of absence to be granted by resolution of the House. It would seem appropriate that, where necessary, such a motion should be moved by a Minister.
Mr. Speaker has kindly indicated that he is content with the proposed change.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for having taken this point and put it into the form of an amendment to the Standing Order.
Hitherto, the House was in the embarrassing position that when Mr. Speaker had leave of absence the Clerk nevertheless had to stand at the Table and inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, which threw many of us into alarm that he might be ill and gave others a sense of insincerity that his absence was, indeed, avoidable, though an absence which the House had desired. The amendment will make for a greater decency in our proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of Select Committees related to Government departments and of the Select Committees on Scottish and Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. George Cunningham: I rise merely to draw the attention of hon. Members to a change that I believe we have effected unintentionally and certainly contrary to the intention of the Procedure Committee. The effect of the motion, which only repeats and consolidates what we did a few months ago, is to remove from hon. Members the right to use Standing Order No. 13 in respect of the nomination of hon. Members to a Select Committee.
Although it is not generally realised to be so, Standing Order No. 13 is available to hon. Members not only to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill but also to propose changes to the composition of Select Committees. However, when we brought the Committee of Selection into the process of nominating people or suggesting names for the new family of Committees—that is, the new departmentally related Committees and the Scottish and Welsh


Committees—we cut out Standing Order No. 13 facilities. The Procedure Committee report anticipated that possibility and clearly stated that we should not entirely remove the right of an hon. Member to use Standing Order No. 13 to propose changes to a Select Committee.
I particularly want to point this out to hon. Members tonight, and especially to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who at an earlier stage in our proceedings today was complaining of his non-nomination to a Committee. In the normal way of things, one could have told him that he had a right under Standing Order No. 13. Unfortunately, we removed it a few months ago. We are confirming the removal of that right by the motion.
It is a matter to which hon. Members should give their minds at some time in the future, so that that right under Standing Order No. 13 is restored. It is an important right, although I believe that it has been used only once by a private Member. It is something that we should look at again. If the Leader of the House were good enough to recommend that we should set up a Sessional Procedure Committee next Session, I hope that this little, but important, matter is one which it will pick up.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned a small point, but it is not unimportant and I shall certainly consider his suggestion sympathetically.

Mr. English: I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the big point that was agreed by both Front Benches as a change in the Procedure Committee's recommendations. The Committee proposed this procedure through the Committee of Selection for all Select Committees. By a somewhat nefarious compromise with the Leader of the House, the two Chief Whips rescued their power of patronage over existing Committees, so that all the Committes that existed before the new Select Committees were set up are still subject to motions put to the House in the name of the Government's Deputy Chief Whip. That is not what the Procedure Com-

mittee proposed, and that needs to be made plain.
We proposed that the Committee of Selection should have some say in the selection of all members of Select Committees. The matter becomes peculiarly important on the Committees dealing with the Ombudsman and public accounts. There is already considerable criticism from the Expenditure Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Public Accounts Committee of our archaic system of audit which is almost totally under the control of the Treasury, which is supposed to be audited. Few people in the United Kingdom have the power to chase off their auditor, but section 3(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 provides that the Treasury's decision is final in any dispute between it and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
In the same way, the Treasury, through its Whips, determines the composition of the PAC. That must be wrong. Our audit is bad enough without jurisdiction over it being subjected entirely to Treasury control. I hope that the Leader of the House, whom I do not blame for changing the resolution, will consider the original recommendations of the Procedure Committee in all respects when he is considering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South. and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
The way that the Committee of Selection has so far exercised its powers also needs consideration. The official position of the Government Chief Whip is that he had no say in the composition of the majority side of Select Committees and one must accept his word, but, by a mysterious process of osmosis, all PPSs have been kept off Select Committees—not only, in the normal traditions of the House, kept off those relating to the Department in which they are PPSs, but kept off all the Committees. All officers of the Conservative Back-Bench groups have been kept off Select Committees. It is not for me to point out that that rather weakens the Government's case on Select Committees or weakens the calibre of those


applying to be officers of the Conservatives' Back-Bench groups.
Those are not matters for me in a party sense, but in a House of Commons sense we must protest that by some process, whatever it may be, there has been a deliberate reduction in the calibre of Conservative Members on Select Committees. It is extremely unfortunate.
There is scope for the review of the original recommendations of the Procedure Committee, both because they have not been carried out and because their implementation seems to have defects.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall add that matter to my reflections.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of Select Committees related to Government departments and of the Select Committees on Scottish and Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

COMMITTAL OF BILLS

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 33 (Selection of amendments) be amended, as follows:
Line 21, after 'to', insert 'commit or'.

This amendment will enable Mr. Speaker to select or, if he does not wish to, not to select motions to commit Bills as if they were amendments under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 33. As at present drafted, Mr. Speaker's power of selection is limited to motions to recommit Bills.

Question put and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 86A (Select Committes related to government departments) be amended; as follows:
Line 17, leave out 'and'.
Line 18, after 'Wales', insert 'and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland'.

Since the repeal of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act in 1974, the annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland have been laid before this House. But they have not been subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. After taking evidence from the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Select Committee recommended in its report last Session that its orders of reference should be extended to allow it to examine the reports of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner.

The proposed amendment is designed to give effect to the Select Committee's recommendation. It seems right that so long as there is no elected body in Northern Ireland before which reports of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner might be laid, and so long as these reports continue to be laid before Parliament, they should receive the fullest parliamentary attention and scrutiny without diminishing their separate Northern Ireland status. This will end the unreasonable arrangement whereby the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is the only Westminster Select Committee that is precluded from covering Northern Ireland issues. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to all who have collaborated to bring about this very real rationalisation. The suggestion was first made by us and accepted in principle by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in the last Parliament but was not able to be put into effect until the


present Parliament. We are grateful to see it embodied in a Standing Order of the House.
There is a further stage in rationalisation. That happened to occur briefly a few months ago when, temporarily, the Great Britain Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration discharged the functions of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. My hon. Friends and I, considering that there should be the same standards of administration applied in all parts of the United Kingdom, regarded this as a satisfactory arrangement and were sorry that it was the—one hopes, temporary—decision of the Government again to-separate the two offices. Pending there being one Parliamentary Commissioner for all parts of the United Kingdom, applying the same methods and the same standards to his investigations, we are glad that the Northern Ireland reports are laid before this House, which is responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland, and that, being so laid, they will now come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee.
It is a reform that was necessary. We are grateful for it.

Question put and agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 87A (Consolidation, &c., bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 29, at end insert—
(f) any Order in Council laid or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it is made, or is a condition of its continuance in operation, and which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill.

The effect of this amendment is to enable Northern Ireland consolidation orders to come within the remit of the Joint Committee on consolidation and statute law revision. As hon. Members will know, most primary legislation for Northern Ireland dealing with matters within the competence of the former Northern Ireland Assembly is effected by

Orders in Council during direct rule. The consolidation of legislation of such matters is also promulgated by Orders in Council.

Unlike consolidation Bills, Northern Ireland consolidation orders are not subject to any special scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They are, of course, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses and, therefore, they undergo a measure of parliamentary scrutiny. In practice, there is usually little or no debate. The often complex and technical nature of consolidation legislation makes it difficult for hon. Members to give it proper consideration. That is why consolidation Bills go to the Joint Committee on which are experienced legal experts who can scrutinise them in detail and provide Parliament with an expert report.

Since Northern Ireland consolidation Orders in Council do not go to the Joint Committee, hon. Members are obliged to some extent to take on trust that a particular Order in Council, which purports to consolidate the law, actually fulfils that task and does no more and no less. It seems clear that it would be most valuable were Northern Ireland consolidation Orders in Council to be referred to the Joint Committee, which can give such legislative proposals the expert scrutiny which they do not have at present. It will close a small but not wholly insignificant gap in the parliamentary scrutiny given to consolidation legislation.

I understand that the Committee willingly is prepared to take on the extra burden. I am sure that the House will be grateful for that. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord who chairs the Committee. The Committee is unable to take on the task until its terms of reference under Standing Orders are changed. The necessary amendments to Standing Orders in the Lords have already been approved. The motion completes the process.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I and, I am sure, if only they were aware of it, the other representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies, are obliged both to the Joint Committee and to the Leader of the House for an act of


justice as well as common sense in extending the remit of the Joint Committee in this way.
Ever since Orders in Council under the 1974 temporary provisions Act have come before the House, the occupants of the Chair have invariably applied to those Orders in Council which are of a consolidating character the same rules of procedure as apply to consolidation Bills. We have not been permitted, and, indeed, have not sought, to carry debate beyond the question whether they were truly consolidating and whether the consolidation was correct.
However, there has been a loophole in the armoury, namely, that whereas hon. Members, when dealing with other consolidation measures, had behind them the assurance of the scrutiny of the Joint Committee, no such scrutiny was being given in our case: we were taking the reality of the consolidation upon the word of the Executive. That was not as it should be, and this amendment to the Standing Order will put it right.
I should not like to leave the motion without reminding the House that there still continues the anomaly whereby the citizens of a part of the United Kingdom have some of their law made for them by a process which would not be acceptable in the rest of the kingdom—namely, by

Order in Council. Measures of this kind can and do alleviate the impropriety of that discrimination against one part of the United Kingdom, but sooner or later the discrimination itself will have to be removed. The fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom will have to be recognised in the proper way and in the proper place—in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confirm that the membership of the Joint Committee will be strengthened by the inclusion of hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 87A (Consolidation, &c., bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 29, at end insert—
(f) any Order in Council laid or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it is made, or is a condition of its continuance in operation, and which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill.

LIMITATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates the law relating to the limitation of actions in our courts of law. It was last consolidated in 1939, since when we have had four important amending statutes, the latest of which was in 1980. The Bill is pure consolidation. It has been considered by the Joint Committee, to which we are always so much indebted. It is satisfied that the Bill represents the existing law and that there is no point to which the attention of the House should be drawn. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: If I say a word of welcome to the Bill, I hope that it will not be thought to imply any disrespect either to the previous Bill or to the next Bill. It means only that I think that once is enough at this time in the evening.
This is an especially welcome consolidation measure. The law on the limitation of actions has grown piecemeal since 1939 as various sorts of hardship have revealed themselves over the years. The provisions in the Bill are found in the Limitation Acts of 1939, 1963 and 1975, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and the Limitation Amendment Act 1980. It is high time that we were able to find all the provisions on that subject in one place.
I rose especially because an interesting feature of the Bill is the courage with which the draftsman has departed from the language of previous statutes where that seemed appropriate and has said the same thing in a different way. We are sometimes afraid of using different terminology in case we inadvertently change the law. But the language of the law is not enshrined in holy writ, and on occasion there is something to be said for changing either the order in which something is said or the actual terminology used for saying it.
But the draftsman has not fallen into the converse trap of thinking that technical legal terminology can be changed


into the language of the market place That is not always possible because, understandably, legal concepts sometimes require familiarity with the history and background. Speaking personally, I should hesitate to attempt to pilot a space rocket with the help of a do-it-yourself manual which attempted to turn the equations of nuclear physics into monosyllables.
I echo what was said in the Joint Committee, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). It is important that the meaning of words should be known to those who have to apply them. For that reason, I think that the drafting techniques that appeal to the House should be commended by us so as to encourage draftsmen to adopt them on future occasions. If we have to wait for action on the recommendations of the Renton committee, perhaps at least we can encourage draftsmen in well-doing.
There may be provisions in the Bill that will require amendment in the light of future experience—for example, the provisions relating to latent damage—but we cannot delay consolidation until the law is perfect for the next decade. Sufficient unto the day is the complication thereof. As I said on a previous occasion, the Opposition will do all we can to facilitate proper measures of law reform or consolidation when the Government find the time for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Berry.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I propose to say a litle more about this Bill than about the previous two Bills, because it raises a number of questions that I know to be of interest to right hon. and lion. Members whose constituencies are in the Province. They have been good enough to indicate what those questions are, and I should like to say a word about each, albeit briefly, because I do not think that any of them requires long explanations.
It is important that the House should realise that this Bill is different from the previous two. It is a conventional statute law revision Bill making a number of detailed repeals in the statute law of Northern Ireland. It is important, too, to realise the difference between this and a statute law repeal Bill, which can contain repeals of provisions that are still effective but are considered to be of no further practical utility. In other words, such a Bill necessitates value judgments, whereas a statute law revision Bill deals solely with the repeal of statutory provisions that are clearly demonstrated to be
obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded"—
to quote the long title. It is with the latter kind of Bill that we are now concerned.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on the consolidation and statute law revision Bills. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—in connection with a motion that was before the House just a little time ago—express the satisfaction that we all feel with this as a method of scrutiny. That Committee found that all the repeals effected by the Bill fell within the long title.
The Government are most grateful to all the members of the Joint Committee, and in particular to their noble and learned Chairman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, for the truly marvellous work that they do on Bills such as this. One has only to look at the notes on the Bill, which extend to 103 pages, to realise the labours


that the Members of this House have been saved. If it were not that the Committee had gone through this, item by item, and had assured us now that every part of the matters referred to are obsolete, spent and so on, that is a task which would fall on the House. We owe an immense debt to the Committee for taking that burden off the shoulders of the House.
The Bill effects a considerable number of detailed repeals, and I do not think that the House would wish me to mention more than a few. I shall give some idea of the sort of thing that is dealt with. All the specific items repealed are set out in the schedule, which consists of a large number of different parts. Part II is entitled "Appeals" and lists 13 different Acts in which repeals are being made. The provisions being proposed for repeal allow persons to appeal against certain convictions and orders of magistrates' courts.
When those Acts were passed in the nineteenth century and the early part of this century, it was necessary to include such provisions as there was no general enactment which had the same effect. However, sections 140 and 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 now authorise appeals against sentence or conviction and from other orders made by magistrates' courts in Northern Ireland. The earlier provisions, having been superseded by sections 140 and 143, are no longer needed.
Part XIV of the schedule effects repeals in a miscellany of Acts. It was referred to in the minutes of evidence as being open to the description of a ragbag of different and assorted statutes. One entry which is repealed is the residue of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1900. All the substantive provisions of that Act have already been repealed by earlier legislation. The only provisions in it which are still alive consist of the short and long titles. Obviously, those provisions are no longer necessary in view of the earlier repeals.
Might I say a word about one aspect which I know is of importance to the right hon Member for Down, South? I have spoken about the differences between statute law revision and statute law repeal. It is important to remember that the differences are of two kinds. One relates to the content of the two

different kinds of Bill and the other relates to the procedures to which the two different kinds of Bill are subject. I need say no more about the difference in the content. The important thing is that, while the one does not entail any kind of value judgment, the other does, because statute law repeal Bills are repealing provisions which have some effect in law but which it has been decided have no practical utility. That is the difference.
I can now limit myself as to the difference in procedure. There may he some misunderstanding here. With the statute law repeal Bill there are two possibilities. I am speaking now of Northern Ireland. These possibilities were referred to by the draftsmen in giving evidence to the Joint Committee when it was considering the Bill. Where it was desired to repeal a provision which would be the subject of a statute law repeal Bill rather than a statute law revision Bill, there were the two choices. Either the draftsmen could seek to persuade the Law Commission to include it in a Bill being put forward by the Law Commission or it could be done by Order in Council. I believe that to be right, although it means that the position is slightly different in that respect in Northern Ireland. It does, however. mean that there are the two possibilities. As far as I know, there is nothing lost by having these alternatives. If the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues feel that there is, I shall be glad to discuss that with them.
As to English statute law revision Bills, there has not been one since the Law Commission was established. The last one was in the 1965–66 Session. I have looked it up. There have been two statute law revision Bills since then. but they were both Northern Ireland matters.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware of how a statute law revision Bill is dealt with. There have been two previous statute law revision Bills in the 1970s. In each case, what has happened is that the draftsman has had, so to speak, a free run up to the Joint Committee stage or up to the Second Reading in the other place. Then the Joint Committee has received the Bill together with very comprehensive notes on the Bill, as in this case, and the very valuable process


of scrutiny by that Committee has taken place. There has not been a statute law revision Bill since the 1965–66 Session and, therefore, no procedure has been established as to how the Law Commission would deal with it.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a task to which a good deal of parliamentary draftsmen's time must be allotted. When a parliamentary draftsman is asked to produce a statute law revision Bill, he has to go backwards and forwards through the statutes seeing what he can include in it. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, there are parliamentary counsel seconded to the Law Commission, and it would be a very obvious task for them to undertake. We do not know exactly how it would be done, because it has not arisen yet. What we do know is that, however the Bill is initiated and promoted, it would still be subject to the vital procedure, which is scrutiny by the Joint Committee about which we have been speaking. I think that those are the differences and that on examination they will be seen to be probably differences of form rather than of substance.
Perhaps the most important feature and purpose of the Bill is that it will pave the way for a second edition of "Statutes Revised" in Northern Ireland. That is its purpose. If we get all these statutes out of the way, the revised edition will be that much shorter and that much less cumbersome and that much easier for the practitioner to use. The purpose of the work of the draftsmen in the two previous Bills and now in this one, if the House approves it, is to have a revised edition of the statutes without all this surplusage. It is for that reason that I commend the Bill to the House and express the hope that it will have a speedy passage.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am very grateful indeed to the learned Solicitor-General for having propounded the Bill in a much less than perfunctory manner and, indeed, for having at an earlier stage, through correspondence, sought to remove some of the anxieties which my hon. Friends and I felt on being confronted with this legislation and attempting to understand its character

and purport and the extent to which we might ourselves be required by our duty to give it close scrutiny.
The statute law of Northern Ireland is of a much more multifarious origin than the statute law of this part of the kingdom. A glance at some of the parts of the schedule to the Bill reminds us of the various components of that statute law. I notice that many of the statutes cited in those parts go back not only to the Parliament of Ireland but to the Parliament of Ireland before that of 1782, known as Grattan's Parliament, which, though short-lived, was the Parliament eventually absorbed into this Parliament in the year 1800.
So there is the legislation of the Parliament of Ireland both before and after 1782; there is the legislation of this Parliament, specifically relating to Northern Ireland, while this Parliament was the only legislature for Northern Ireland up to 1922; there is, after 1922 and up to 1972, the legislation both of this Parliament in respect of Northern Ireland and of the Northern Ireland Parliament; finally, there is the legislation of that short, ill-fated experiment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, though I do not expect that any of its deeds have got around yet to requiring revision. That being so, the convenience and desirability of an edition of the "Statutes Revised" is self-evident; and, as the Solicitor-General said, the essential case for this Bill is that it makes possible a better edition of the "Statutes Revised"—I understand there is anxiety to bring one out now as soon as possible—than would otherwise have been available.
Though it was originally proposed to treat this as a consolidation measure, and although the Leader of the House twice before the Summer Recess erroneously referred to it in reply to the business question as a consolidation measure, the Bill is not consolidation, as the Solicitor-General made clear. The fact that it goes to the Joint Select Committee may, perhaps, have given rise to the error of the Leader of the House; but the title of that Committee is Joint Committee on Consolidation &c. Bills, and it is under the "&c." that this Bill received the very valuable attention, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, of the Committee.
It is legislation to deal—I am sure that this is not a legal expression, but I found it helpful—with objective obsolescence. A repeal Bill might be required to deal with subjective obsolescence; but in so far as this Bill removes what is obsolete, it removes what is objectively obsolete, or at any rate is intended to do so. A study of the notes on the Bill prepared by the Office of the Legislative Draftsman at Stormont should satisfy any inquirer upon the nature of the revision contained in the Bill, of which two particularly drastic examples were given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I cannot say—his speech has rendered this admission much easier for me—that I have worked my way through all the items in the schedule with the assistance of the notes on the Bill; but I can say that I have compared sufficient of the two to grasp the nature of the revision process and to join the Solicitor-General in expressing the appreciation of my colleagues and myself for the work done for us by the Joint Select Committee.
I think it is a pity, though probably there is no way of remedying it, that the public, and probably even the legal public, in Northern Ireland do not realise that in work of this kind the Parliament of the Union is working for Northern Ireland as it works for the rest of the kingdom. Maybe that understanding would be of more value and reassurance to the public in Northern Ireland than many other sorts of statement which, unfortunately, receive more publicity.
The Solicitor-General distinguished this type of Bill from a repeals Bill; but he gave no indication as to whether there might be, in preparation or on its way, a Northern Ireland statute law repeals Bill. I see the faint trace of a negative upon the countenance of the Solicitor-General; but that may be an expression of mere nescience rather than a direct negative.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech left open, and what remains for study between now and that indefinite date, is what will prove to be the best procedure when that task has to be tackled; for we do not have a separate Law Commission for Northern Ireland, and the use of the Law Commission at one stage in producing a Bill rather than procedure by Order in Council would

clearly be preferable from the point of view of Northern Ireland.
I hope, therefore, that there may continue on this subject the helpful contact which has been established in the context of this Bill between the Law Officers and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I again express my appreciation to the Solicitor-General for the great care that he has devoted to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr Waddington.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

EMPLOYMENT (GLASGOW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Jim Craigen: I deliberately used the title "Employment in the Glasgow area" for this debate because I want Scottish Office Ministers to concern themselves much more with the city's shrinking economic and employment base, especially at a time when 58,000 people are out of work in Glasgow and more than 74,000 are out of work within the Glasgow travel-to-work area.
I want to warn the Minister of the accumulated effects of the Government's economic and expenditure policies on the city's industrial prospects. Glasgow now has one-quarter of Scotland's total jobless, although only one-sixth of her population.
The signs are of a further deterioration in the employment pattern within the city and a growing disparity between the position in Glasgow and the overall Scottish position. As the Minister knows, redundancies have been increased in West Scotland at an alarming rate recently, and I know that this has been giving concern


to the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland.
Next month, another clothing firm in my constituency will be closing. Eighty-five jobs are involved. This is a firm that two years ago was seeking my assistance because it had trouble over skilled labour shortage. The company gives the recession, foreign competition and falling local authority orders as being the main reason for the closure.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, in the Government support for the promotion of small firms, attention is being paid to the central Government procurement procedures. For example, has there been any change in the purchasing procedure, even within the Scottish Office in the way in which it makes purchases, or is it simply that there has been an overall drop in the amount of central Government and certain local government procurement?
As the Minister will be aware, Glasgow is no longer basically a manufacturing centre. We have had a continuous decline in our basic industries and in many of our low-technology metal engineering concerns, and nowadays less than 30 per cent. of the work force is engaged in manufacturing. It is the service sector which now provides 70 per cent. of Glasgow's jobs, and these occupations are becoming highly vulnerable to the decline in consumer spending.
This is a pattern which is reflected throughout the country, but I suggest that there are certain aspects of the position in Glasgow that will worsen the consumer spending pattern even further. Retailers, for example, are expecting their poorest trading results ever in 1980. There may be some pick-up at the time of the Christmas period, but even food sales are being affected at the minute.
As the Minister will appreciate, this has a knock-on effect, with a rippling impact on other industries and concerns. In his capacity as Minister for home affairs and the environment, he cannot escape the fact that the policies over the Scottish Special Housing Association and support for local authorities will result in redundancies in the construction industry at a time when that industry is already reeling under the effects of changes in the pattern of public expenditure. Indeed, several modernisation schemes within my own constituency

will be affected, quite apart from new-build projects in various parts of Scotland.
At a meeting that I attended last week in Glasgow, the convener of housing made clear that the city would require £72 million in housing support grant for 1980–81 just to maintain existing maintenance and repair work and the other housing services within Glasgow.
In looking at the employment or unemployment background of those in the Strathclyde region, one finds that last June about half of the total male unemployed were classified as general labourers available for unskilled or semi-skilled work, and about a quarter of the female total of unemployed were in the same category. This position is even more pronounced within the Glasgow area, and I need hardly tell the Minister that the opportunities for unskilled and semiskilled work have been shrinking over the years.
Glasgow has now been caught up in the consequences of overall Government mismanagement. I do not expect the Minister to deal with the exchange rate, interest rates, the level of inflation or public expenditure cuts. The Government are pursuing their own course on the basis that they want to reduce public expenditure, but to a great extent they are shifting the nature of public expenditure so that we shall be paying more to support people out of work.
Against the background of what is happening nationally, I should like the Minister to consider a number of measures which would do a little to ameliorate the position of special development areas, such as Glasgow, where, as I have pointed out, the purchasing power will be reduced.
With poor prospects facing school leavers in the Glasgow conurbation, I should like the Scottish Office to consider a centrally funded scheme of educational bursaries to assist 16 to 18-year olds to remain at school. I know that a discretionary bursary is operating. I understand that in Glasgow about 612 category A discretionary bursaries are currently being applied. But that has an impact on the local authority's expenditure.
Glasgow has a higher percentage of young jobless than the average for the country. Therefore, I should like the


Government to reintroduce the youth subsidy to small firms in special development areas. Our experience with the youth subsidy was helpful in the recruitment of school leavers. Moreover, the availability of a large number of well-qualified youngsters was one of the main arguments advanced by Glasgow in its campaign for Civil Service jobs.
What is the position regarding the Ministry of Defence dispersal jobs to the St. Enoch's site in Glasgow? One reads that the first tranche of jobs for the Overseas Development Administration to East Kilbride will be next February. But are we right in assuming that the suggested transfer of the Crown Agents pensions department will substitute the second tranche of dispersal for the Overseas Development Administration? Will the Minister indicate how many jobs in the Civil Service will be lost in the Glasgow area as a result of the Prime Minister's statement last May about future levels of national Civil Service staffing?
The last thing that many small business men in Glasgow want is the implementation of the Government's Green Paper on income during initial sickness. Seeking to transfer more of the cost of sickness to the employer will make the disincentive to recruit additional labour even greater. The Government ought to he reducing the employer's national insurance contributions in special development areas so as to ease labour recruitment. Moreover, I suggest that there is a good argument for abolishing the employer's national insurance surcharge in special development areas for those up to the age of 18. That would help considerably in the recruitment of youngsters.
I understand that the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), has another ministerial commitment. It is fortuitous that the Minister present, with his responsibility for home affairs and the environment, plays a particular part in the handling of the rate support grant and the housing support grant settlements. I want him to bear in mind that nationally the local authorities and public bodies are responsible for about a quarter of all the places under the youth opportunities programme. I hope that he will remember

th0at when it comes to the settlements, because many local authorities will be under pressures concerning staffing.
The youth opportunities programme has provided a useful safety valve in easing unemployment among young people, but there is a limit to the pressure it can take in terms of numbers. It is now coping with many youngsters who are really of craft and technician potential and who were not thought of in terms of the original job creation programme. In the case of work experience in employers' premises, it stands to reason that if there is a continual reduction in the number of opportunities within private companies there will be fewer opportunities for youngsters to gain this kind of work experience.
I turn to the question of the enterprise zone which has been earmarked for the Greater Glasgow conurbation. The designated area is more or less next door to my constituency. It would be helpful to Glasgow's industrial prospects if the Government, having conceded rates relief in terms of an enterprise zone, were to extend that helpfulness to industry generally in Glasgow.
I should be interested to know tonight how the Government hope to prevent moonlighting by companies. I am concerned that some firms will see it as a house-moving opportunity and that it may not result in extra employment opportunities overall. Is there the danger that the enterprise zone could have a preponderance of warehousing jobs rather than manufacturing capacity?
I turn briefly to the excellent work which the Scottish Development Agency has been doing in recent years. I am not so much in contact with its work in the eastern Glasgow renewal area, although I have welcomed the work that it has been able to do, particularly environmentally and industrially so far, in the Maryhill corridor. Indeed, I have benefited to some extent through the fact that the Sighthill Park was one of its major commitments in creating a new public park in Glasgow.
I hope that the Government will sustain the efforts of the SDA in land renewal, because it is vital that the city should be as attractive as possible to incoming industrial concerns.
The Minister might comment briefly on the work in connection with the location of a Scottish exhibition centre. The SDA has been considering suitable sites. I think that rightly West Scotland, with its credentials in terms of motorway, airport and rail connections, is a suitable location. If a new site is chosen in Glasgow, I wonder whether it will kill off the Kelvin Hall.
Finally, the Government must do all that they can to encourage the efforts being made by the SDA over the promotion of a science park within West Scotland. I should like to see a science park located in Glasgow. The two universities must be fully involved in the exercise if we are to give the city a future and provide Glaswegians with the opportunity for more high-technology work in future.
Perhaps I can bend the Minister's ear over the Dawsholm site. The disused gas works are presently in the ownership of British Gas, which for some considerable time has been haggling with the Scottish Development Agency over the district valuer's price. It has refused to go to arbitration. It has put the site on the open market but seemingly has found no one who is interested in coming forward.
The district of Glasgow wants to develop the site for industrial purposes, but the land still lies sterilised. The Prime Minister has said that she is not for turning. I hope that the Minister will realise the significance of what I am saying. Unless Scottish Office Ministers interest themselves in Scotland's largest urban area, Glasgow will reach the point of no return industrially.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkhid): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen) on raising this subject for debate. As a Member representing a Glasgow constituency, he has a natural interest in both his constituency and the remainder of Glasgow. I assure him that the problem that he has raised has a much wider significance. I am sure that he will agree that Glasgow is one of the United Kingdom's great cities and that the economic health and prosperity of Glasgow can always be said to be a marker

and indication of Scotland's economic prosperity. The subject that he has raised is of considerable importance. I can assure him that Scottish Office Ministers of this Government, as of previous Governments, have recognised that by their words and their deeds and that they will continue to do so.
The problem of unemployment in the Glasgow area is serious and the Government share the hon. Gentleman's undoubted concern from not only a statistical point of view. We recognise the anguish that unemployment causes those who suffer it and the sense of frustration and waste inherent in any level of unemployment. We are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to find a remedy to the problem.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—I think that it is undeniably the case—that regrettably the problems of unemployment in the Glasgow area, as elsewhere, are not a new phenomenon. Over recent years we have seen a remorseless rise in the level of unemployment. In 1974 there were 27,892 unemployed. Five years later, in 1979, the figure had doubled to 53,801. We now have a figure of almost 75,000. These are serious figures.
I mention that historical background to illustrate two fundamentally important aspects of the problem and not to make a party point. First, I must emphasise that the problem of unemployment did not begin 18 months ago as is sometimes suggested. The fact that unemployment doubled while the previous Labour Government were in office, despite a policy of increased public expenditure, should bring home to the House and the public that demands for increases in public expenditure are not an answer to Glasgow's problems or to the unemployment problem of the United Kingdom. During that period we saw increases in expenditure and a remorseless increase in the level of unemployment.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government believe that the longterm solution to the problem is the conquest of inflation. Tonight is not the occasion to go into the reasons for that. These have been well ventilated, not least in yesterday's debate. There are a number of specific measures that the Government have taken and are taking that we


believe will make an important contribution to Glasgow's problems. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that Glasgow continues to have special development area status. The Government's decision to reduce substantially the proportion of Scotland that has such development area status has as one consequence considerable benefits for Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Instead of the whole of Scotland having a similar attraction to industry, the concentration of development area status in Glasgow and the adjoining areas has conveyed a relative advantage. That is an important consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Government's decision to set up an enterprise zone in Clydebank, which is in the Glasgow working area. That is an important innovation and one that has already led to a considerable attraction of interest to develop the Clydebank zone. I entirely agree that it would be undesirable if the only consequence of establishing Clydebank as an enterprise was to encourage industries that already exist in the Glasgow area to move from other areas to Clydebank. That is not the purpose of an enterprise zone. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the purpose of such a zone should be to attract new industry and jobs. We hope that the zone will come into practical effect by about 1 April. It will be a considerable contribution towards helping to deal with the economic problems.
The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the achievements of the Scottish Development Agency in the Glasgow area. It has made an important contribution. Since 1975, ½ million sq ft of factory accommodation has been made available. A further ½ million is under construction, which will make an important contribution to attracting employment and industry to the Glasgow area. Earlier this year the Scottish Development Agency unveiled its plans for a £40 million complex at St. Enoch's which it is believed will have a potential for 15,000 jobs. That, too, is an optimistic and encouraging note in the attraction of industry.
The hon. Gentleman indicated his view that the reduction in the resources of the

Scottish Special Housing Association would have an effect on the construction industry in Glasgow and elsewhere. However, one priority that it has been given by the Government is to continue the work that it is doing in the GEAR—Glasgow east area renewal—area of Glasgow. Concentrating its resources in the GEAR area and the other priority areas that the Government have indicated will make a major contribution to solving the problems that the hon. Member indicates. Since the GEAR project began, the association has completed a large number of housing units, which has been a major contribution to the construction industry. That trend is continuing, notwithstanding the reduced resources available to the Scottish Special Housing Association. Since the project began, 75 small factory units and six larger advanced units in the East End have been completed and almost all are occupied, thereby showing the potential for further development of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman expressed his concern that the local authorities may not find it possible to respond to the increased youth opportunities programme that the Government are providing. I understand his concern. However, the Manpower Services Commission has initiated a press and television campaign to try to encourage private industries to respond to an even greater extent in order to provide places for youngsters who wish to benefit from the programme. That will help to deal with any problem that the hon. Gentleman may envisage and provide a better prospect of long-term employment for the youngsters. A firm that benefits from the programme may be in a better position to offer the youngsters a permanent job.
The hon. Gentleman considered that the small firms employment subsidy should be reintroduced and not discontinued. The Government decided to discontinue the subsidy because it was seen to be the least cost-effective of the special employment measures and surveys had shown that a large proportion of the jobs supported by the subsidy would have arisen in any event. Clearly, at any time, though particularly when resources are limited, it would be unwise to use resources to appear to be providing jobs when all the evidence


indicates that the jobs would be provided anyway. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that that would not be the best use of the resources.
The hon. Gentleman asked about dispersal. The Ministry of Defence has selected the units of London-based work expected to be moved and the task of establishing their accommodation requirements and planning for the building to house them is proceeding. On present plans, St. Enoch's will be ready for occupation in 1986. That time scale for completion is necessary in a development of this magnitude, costing about £15 million. Consideration is also being given to the feasibility of providing temporary accommodation to permit an advance move of posts and we hope to make a statement in the near future on the conclusion of those deliberations.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any prospect of the pensions department of the Crown Agents being involved in any move. I understand that discussions are being held with the Crown Agents to see whether that is a possibility.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the question of an exhibition centre, and he will be aware that the SDA is undertaking a study of that possibility. The Government will obviously look with interest at the conclusions to see whether such a development would be appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman has put forward some interesting proposals which I will commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for education and industry at the Scottish Office, because some of them relate specifically to his responsibilities.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his anxiety about the need to improve employment prospects for his constituents and the citizens of Glasgow as a whole. We recognise that Scotland's economy cannot be said to be prosperous or successful until that of Glasgow can be seen to be in that category. The Government have shown by their policies that they recognise the special needs of Glasgow and that its problems are more serious and considerable than those of many other parts of Glasgow. We have shown that not only in action on development area status but in the other ways that I have indicated.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. I know that it will not be the last time that the subject is debated, nor should it be, but I hope that I have given him some assurance that the Government share his concern and are determined to do all in their power to try to help to rectify the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.